Bermuda Min. of Finance Presents Credit Union Act

Press Release

The Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance, the Hon. Paula A. Cox, JP, MP, tabled, the Credit Union Act 2010, in the House of Assembly this morning.

Today Minister Cox said, “I am pleased to have tabled the Credit Union Act 2010 in the House of Assembly. This legislation is extremely important in that it will modernise and strengthen Bermuda’s regulatory framework for credit unions.“This framework will provide an appropriate set of financial management disciplines for the credit union to maintain, while also allowing the creation of shareholder wealth for its members.“

In summary, the new legislation will transfer complete regulatory and supervisory responsibilities for credit unions to the Bermuda Monetary Authority and this is consistent with international standards which maintain that the agency that regulates financial institutions should supervise credit unions.”

Minister Cox noted that “unlike other financial institutions, credit unions work as a cooperative, valuing volunteerism, co-operation and member participation”. And she advised that in developing the new regulatory framework, the Ministry of Finance and the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) ensured that the unique characteristics of credit unions were not lost.

Accordingly, the legislation encapsulates the principles contained within the Model Law produced by the World Council of Credit Unions and the International Credit Union Safety and Soundness Principles.

Minister Cox went on to say, “The Credit Unions Act 2010 involved significant consultation and consensus building between the Ministry of Finance, Bermuda Monetary Authority and the BIU Members Credit Union, Bermuda’s only credit union, and I would like to thank those parties for their sterling effort in bringing this Act to fruition. I am pleased to note that the BIU Members Credit Union has been a full participant in this process and their comments and views have been fully considered.”

Minister Cox noted the importance of credit unions in Bermuda and worldwide as they offer members much more than financial services. They provide members the opportunity to own their own financial institution and help them create opportunities such as starting small businesses, building family homes and educating their children. In some countries, members encounter their first taste of democratic decision making through their credit unions.

Today, the Bermuda Industrial Union Members’ Credit Union President, Bro. Graham Nesbitt, expressed “a very great sense of satisfaction” at the commissioning of the new Credit Union Bill. He further added that he is “very gratified” that it truly reflects the ‘People’s Credit Union Bill’, due to the unrelenting efforts of the Credit Union over the past several years.

He said that the Bill would be for the further uplift of the members. The Credit Union President added that much appreciation is also being shown to the World Council of Credit Unions, whose contribution showed that although the Bill is not culture-bound, it reaches to the core needs of every co-operator within a global village.

He said that the new Bill with its nuances will fit the needs of the members in Bermuda and was confident that members will begin to feel the positive impact of this Bill in a tangible way.

And in response to the Credit Union developments in the House, Jeremy Cox, CEO of the BMA said, “The Authority is very pleased that the work initiated last year to update the legislative and policy framework for credit unions in Bermuda has been completed. Upon approval of the legislation the Authority will implement the enhanced framework and will have direct responsibility for the regulation and supervision of any credit union established in Bermuda.

“We appreciate the time that the Board and management of the BIU Credit Union devoted to the extensive consultation process involved in this effort, as well as the support of our colleagues at the Ministry of Finance. The process has been both collaborative and productive, resulting in a framework that reflects high standards and best practice internationally for the supervision of credit unions, while being appropriate for the nature of the Bermuda market and the ultimate protection of depositors here.”

Minister Cox said she looked forward to the passage of this important legislation in the House and has no doubt that this new regulatory regime for credit unions will enhance public confidence in the BIU Members Credit Union and any other credit unions which may be formed. Ultimately, she said this legislation should assist in ensuring higher membership, savings growth and stronger financial performance of credit unions.

Guam: Self-Determination or Further Militarisation?

Guam: Self-Determination, or More U.S. Troops?

By Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/621

Usually, when someone refers to a place as a "U.S. colony," they are making an analogy, suggesting that U.S. influence somewhere is so strong, and the indigenous residents of the place have so little effective say over key decisions, that it's as if the place were a formal U.S. colony.

But, remarkably, and perhaps predictably, for a country whose leaders, editorialists and pundits constantly pontificate about how we are an indispensable force for freedom in the world, we rarely discuss the fact that there are places in the world that are actual U.S. colonies. Still less do we consider whether we are complying with our international obligations to respect the right of self-determination for colonized peoples, and if we are not, what we could do to change that.

A small corrective is being offered as part of Asian Pacific Heritage Month by PBS, which is webcasting Vanessa Warheit's documentary, The Insular Empire: America in the Mariana Islands until next Sunday, June 20.

The Mariana Islands comprise two political entities, the territory of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Guam was ceded to the U.S. by Spain in 1898 after Spain's defeat in the Spanish-American war, while the Northern Mariana Islands were conquered by the U.S. from Japan in World War II. As political entities, the two have several features in common: while they are ruled by Washington, and their residents are U.S. citizens, many of whom serve in the U.S. military, they have no vote in Presidential elections, nor do they have a representative in Congress who can vote on the passage of legislation.

In other words: they are U.S. colonies.

Guam, in particular, is facing a major decision about its destiny, a decision made in Washington about which its indigenous population has not yet had any effective say. The United States is currently planning to relocate 8,000 Marines and 9,000 dependents to Guam by 2014. With an expected influx of foreign workers recruited for military construction projects, Guam's population is expected to increase by some 80,000 people by 2014, a 45% increase from its current estimated population of 180,000.

More than a quarter of the island is already owned by the U.S. military, the Washington Post noted in March, while a quarter of the island's population lives below the U.S. poverty level.

As the Post noted, Guam was not consulted in the decision to move 8,000 Marines to the island and has no legal means to block it. Yet an Environmental Protection Agency analysis said the U.S. military buildup could trigger island-wide water shortages.

The possibility that Guam's indigenous residents may suffer irreparable harm from this planned military buildup without ever having had any effective say about it heightens the responsibility of Americans who do have voting representation in Washington to know something about the military buildup and its historical background. Thanks to PBS, until Sunday we have the opportunity to catch up a little on the history they didn't teach us in school.

N. Marianas Senate Leader Terms Territory's Representation in US Congress "Purely Ceremonial"

Radio New Zealand International

The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI) Senate Floor Leader, Pete Reyes, says they want their votes in the US Congress to be more than just symbolic. CNMI, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are allowed only to vote in committee.They have no voting rights during final deliberations of legislation that may affect their respective jurisdictions.

Mr Reyes has proposed to request that the United States congress allow their delegate to have voting rights on legislation that affects the CNMI (similar legislation was earlier introduced in the Legislature of Guam -  OTR).

He says the delegates should be able to have a say in how their country is governed by the US. "Their participation is purely ceremonial, because they don’t have to listen to us. We are not voting on the bill, we don’t vote on the bill to make sure that those bills represent the true interests of the commonwealth.
But if we have a voting member in the US Congress then we can stand up on the floor and defend any legislation that has a negative impact on our economy."

Senator Reyes says recent legislation further federalising CNMI has proven damaging to the territory.

UN Committee Adopts Two Resolutions on Decolonisation Information

The United Nations Special Committee on  Decolonisation, on the first day of its 2010 session with the adoption of its resolution on "Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations," and a second resolution on "Dissemination of information on decolonization." The resolutions, which are virtually identical to the those approved in 2009, were adopted without a vote. The text of the two resolution are as follows:

Resolution L.5 : Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 1970 (XVIII) of 16 December 1963, in which it requested the Special Committee (on Decolonisation) to study the information transmitted to the Secretary-General in accordance with Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations and to take such information fully into account in examining the situation with regard to the implementation of the  (Decolonisation)Declaration, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,

Recalling also its resolution 64/97 of 10 December 2009, in which it requested the Special Committee to continue to discharge the functions entrusted to it under resolution 1970 (XVIII),

Stressing the importance of timely transmission by the administering Powers of adequate information under Article 73 e of the Charter, in particular in relation to the preparation by the Secretariat of the working papers on the Territories concerned,

Having examined the report of the Secretary-General,

1. Reaffirms that, in the absence of a decision by the General Assembly itself that a Non-Self-Governing Territory has attained a full measure of self-government in terms of Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations, the administering Power concerned should continue to transmit information under Article 73 e of the Charter with respect to that Territory;

2. Requests the administering Powers concerned, in accordance with their Charter obligations, to transmit or continue to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social and educational conditions in the Territories for which they are respectively responsible, as well as the fullest possible information on political and constitutional developments in the Territories concerned, including the constitution, legislative act or executive order providing for the government of the Territory and the constitutional relationship of the Territory to the administering Power, within a maximum period of six months following the expiration of the administrative year in those Territories;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to ensure that adequate information is drawn from all available published sources in connection with the preparation of the working papers relating to the Territories concerned;

4. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to continue to discharge the functions entrusted to it under General Assembly resolution 1970 (XVIII), in accordance with established procedures.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Resolution L.6  Dissemination of Information on Decolonization


The General Assembly,

Having examined the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the dissemination of information on decolonization and publicity for the work of the United Nations in the field of decolonization,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and other resolutions and decisions of the United Nations concerning the dissemination of information on decolonization, in particular Assembly resolution 64/105 of 10 December 2009,

Recognizing the need for flexible, practical and innovative approaches towards reviewing the options of self-determination for the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories with a view to implementing the plan of action for the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,

Reiterating the importance of dissemination of information as an instrument for furthering the aims of the Declaration, and mindful of the role of world public opinion in effectively assisting the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories to achieve self-determination,

Recognizing the role played by the administering Powers in transmitting information to the Secretary-General in accordance with the terms of Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recognizing also the role of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat, through the United Nations information centres, in the dissemination of information at the regional level on the activities of the United Nations,

Recalling the issuance by the Department of Public Information, in consultation with the United Nations Development Programme, the specialized agencies and the Special Committee, of an information leaflet on assistance programmes available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories,

Aware of the role of non-governmental organizations in the dissemination of information on decolonization,

1. Approves the activities in the field of dissemination of information on decolonization undertaken by the Department of Public Information and the Department of Political Affairs of the Secretariat, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization, and recalls with satisfaction the publication, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 61/129 of 14 December 2006, of the information leaflet entitled “What the UN Can Do to Assist Non-Self-Governing Territories”, which was updated for the United Nations website on decolonization in May 2009, and encourages continued updating and wide dissemination of the information leaflet;

2. Considers it important to continue and expand its efforts to ensure the widest possible dissemination of information on decolonization, with particular emphasis on the options of self-determination available for the peoples of Non Self Governing Territories, and to this end, requests the Department of Public Information through the United Nations information centres in the relevant regions to actively engage and seek new and innovative ways to disseminate material to the Non-Self-Governing Territories;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to further enhance the information provided on the United Nations decolonization website and to continue to include the full series of reports of the regional seminars on decolonization, the statements and scholarly papers presented at those seminars and links to the full series of reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;

4. Requests the Department of Public Information to continue its efforts to update web-based information on the assistance programmes available to the Non Self-Governing Territories;

5. Requests the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Public Information to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee and to continue their efforts to take measures through all the media available, including publications, radio and television, as well as the Internet, to give publicity to the work of the United Nations in the field of decolonization and, inter alia:

(a) To develop procedures to collect, prepare and disseminate, particularly to the Non-Self-Governing Territories, basic material on the issue of self-determination of the peoples of the Territories;

(b) To seek the full cooperation of the administering Powers in the discharge of the tasks referred to above;

(c) To explore further the idea of a programme of collaboration with the decolonization focal points of territorial Governments, particularly in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, to help improve the exchange of information;

(d) To encourage the involvement of non-governmental organizations in the dissemination of information on decolonization;

(e) To encourage the involvement of the Non-Self-Governing Territories in the dissemination of information on decolonization;

(f) To report to the Special Committee on measures taken in the implementation of the present resolution;

6. Requests all States, including the administering Powers, to accelerate the dissemination of information referred to in paragraph 2 above;

7. Requests the Special Committee to continue to examine this question and to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-sixth session on the implementation of the present resolution.

UN Decolonisation Committee Faces Serious Issues

The United Nations (UN) Special Committee on Decolonisation begins its 2010 session on 14th June as it continues its review of the remaining sixteen territories formally listed by the UN as non self-governing. The session follows on from the annual Pacific seminar which convened in Noumea, New Caledonia last May, and which heard analyses from representatives from territorial governments, experts and non-governmental organisations on the political, constitutional and economic developments in the territories. An expert presentation was made at the session on the implementation of the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism as it comes to a close at the end of 2010.

Public Information on Decolonisation

The Special Committee will have to grapple with a number of critical issues that continue to delay the realisation of the decolonisation process. During the first week, the committee will hear from UN officials about their activities in disseminating information on decolonisation. Most territories have consistently asserted that such dissemination has largely been ineffective, especially as it relates to information on the legitimate political status options available to them. The UN has countered that the website provides important information on decolonisation.

Political Education Programmes

UN resolutions over the last two decades have called for political education programmes to heighten the awareness of the people on the options, but few such programmes have ever been undertaken. A notable exception was the assistance provided by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Electoral Affairs Unit in relation to Tokelau. The fact that New Zealand, as the territory’s administering power, has cooperated fully with the relevant UN offices on the information programmes makes all the difference. Such a UN role in public information and education has been rejected by other administering powers, however. The Special Committee will, therefore, have to assess the actual effectiveness of existing information dissemination, and devise solutions to correct any deficiencies. The Committee should also consider innovative strategies to disseminate information to the peoples of the territories on their legitimate political status options through information campaigns in view of the general reluctance of most administering Powers to work with the UN on such programmes.

Visiting Missions/Regional Seminars

Relatedly, the Special Committee will also have to deal with the difficulties in conducting its important visiting missions to the territories to assess first-hand the situation on the ground in the territories concerned. For their part, France agreed to the convening of the 2010 UN decolonisation seminar in New Caledonia, but this was only the second time since the seminars began in 1990 that a territory was permitted to host the annual dialogue (the 2003 seminar being held in United Kingdom – administered Anguilla). For its part, the UK concurred with special visiting missions to Bermuda in 2005 and to the Turks & Caicos Islands in 2006, whilst New Zealand worked closely with the Special Committee visiting mision to Tokelau in 2006. The US, on the other hand, has not consented to a UN visiting mission since the 1970s, rejecting formal requests to this effect by the Guam and US Virgin Islands governments during the 1980s and 1990s.

Review of Caribbean Territories

The Special Committee will also have to examine developments in the eleven small territories whose issues have been grouped into one long resolution of eleven parts (as opposed to the previous eleven separate resolutions). In the Caribbean, the operation of new dependency constitutions in the British Virgin Islands and in the Cayman Islands, respectively, providing new delegated authority should be examined, along with the status of constitutional and political advancement in Montserrat and Anguilla whose constitutional reviews have yielded proposals for full internal self-government – a political status which the former UK Labour Party government rejected as “not on offer.” Accordingly, the Committee might assess whether the new United Kingdom Government will maintain the Labour Party government position of rejecting the political status option of free association.

Of particular focus of the Special Committee should be the suspension of the 2006 constitution in the Turks and Caicos Islands which abolished the elected government transferring all of its authority to the UK – appointed Governor pending an ongoing investigation (funded from the territorial treasury) of several former political leaders. This has resulted in ongoing development projects brought to a halt with significantly increased unemployment, a rise in crime and the territory’s economy at a virtual standstill. The urgency of returning the Turks & Caicos Islands to elected government should be high on the agenda of the Special Committee, while concerns should be raised at the UK appointment of a constitutional advisor responsible for writing a new, less autonomous, constitution for the territory which would be less far less autonomous than the one successfully negotiated by the ousted elected government. The fact that the people of the territory would not be in a position to agree or reject such a revised constitution should raise a red flag in the Special Committee.

Also in the Caribbean, the US response to the proposed constitution of the US Virgin Islands should be closely reviewed by the Committee, along with the territorial Constitutional Convention’s rationale for the inclusion of various provisions in the document to protect the interests of the people. The views of the administering power as expressed in the US Congressional committee hearings held last May on the proposed constitution should also be carefully examined. In this case, the Special Committee should be apprised during its session that a number of key provisions in the proposed constitution rely on resolutions of the General Assembly, most notedly, those which guarantee the ownership, control and disposal of natural resources, including marine resources. Since the administering power has questioned the ‘constitutionality’ of the territory’s claims right to its natural resources, among other areas, the Special Committee should seek to address the fundamental question of the relevancy of international principles vis a vis the unilateral authority of the administering power to legislate for the territory without their consent, and often against their will.

Whilst not formally listed by the UN, Puerto Rico is annually reviewed by the Special Committee, and conducts hearings top listen to speakers from all sides of the political spectrum – as it does in the case of the listed territories. The Special Committee should be made aware of the recent US Congressional hearings held last May which have resulted in a request by the US Congress for clarification from the White House on the legitimacy of more autonomy within the present commonwealth status. The previous US administration had rejected further autonomy as inconsistent with the dependency arrangement. The Special Committee should also review whether there has been any action on its repeated recommendations to the General Assembly that it take up the issue of Puerto Rico.

Review of Pacific Territories

The Special Committee should also have before it to examine issues affecting the decolonisation process in the Pacific where the level of intensity is even greater than that in the Caribbean. Thus, the Special Committee should examine the outcome of the previous internal political status deliberations in American Samoa, and review the issues to be included in the territory’s constitutional convention which will convene at the end of June. The Special Committee should also carefully assess the position of the territory’s elected governor who has called for more autonomy in a future relationship with the United States that would shield the territory from the unilateral applicability of the laws of the administering power in such areas as the retention of the ownership of land and other traditional powers which may be challenged on the basis of how the US constitution and laws are unilaterally applied.

In the case of Guam, the Special Committee should be further updated on the status of militarisation underway, and the attendant social, environmental and political impact expected. The Committee has been especially cautious – perhaps overly-cautions - in its recommendations on this issue even as a number of civil society organisations have consistently provided information to the committee on the present and expected effects of further militarization, most recently at the seminar in New Caledonia. The last time that the Special Committee adopted a decision on “Military Activities and Arrangements by Colonial Powers in Territories under their administration” was 2002, whilst the UN’s agenda item of the same name was quietly phased out in the 1990s. Given that miliarisation of the territories is on the increase, it might behoove the General Assembly to reconsider such a decision and assign the item to the Special Committee. Alternatively, perhaps the item can be considered in the General Assembly's First Committee which deals with disarmament issues, although it is highly unlikely that such a proposal would even be raised, let alone adopted.

The situation in New Caledonia should also be carefully analysed by the Special Committee to assess progress in the implementation of the Noumea Accord which provides for a systematic – and irreversible - transfer of power from France to the territorial government in advance of an agreed referendum on independence. The sustainability of the commitment to the referendum might be an important area of review by the committee, along with the French policy of designating the territory as its major base of military presence in the Pacific region. The formalization of French-Australian defence cooperation via New Caledonia should also be noted. The potential influence of the enhanced military presence on the proposed referendum in New Caledonia should be an important consideration of the Special Committee during its 2010 session.

Sovereignty Disputed Territories (SDTs)

The Special Committee should also be updated on circumstances in the non self-governing territories which are under sovereignty dispute, namely Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar and Western Sahara. The question of which takes precedence in these cases - the self-determination of the people or the sovereignty dispute – remains very much unanswered. In recent years, distinctions have been increasingly made in resolutions of the UN General Assembly qualifying the rights of the people to only those territories which are not subject to sovereignty disputes, mainly aimed at Falkland Islands (Malvinas), but also impacting the other two Sovereignty Disputed Territories (SDTs) as well. Just who constitutes the people of the SDTs – the descendants of an indigenous population which may have been displaced, or the settlers who originated in countries where the right to self-determination has already been exercised, remains very much an open question. This question also extends to most of the small island territories, as well, as methods to dilute the electoral franchise to include ‘non-belonger’ residents in the UK administered territories is being introduced in the context of the constitutional crisis in the Turks & Caicos Islands. This is being seen as an effort to dilute the electorate as the people of the territories would lose their ability of political self-identification.

Development Issues

The Special Committee will also have before it specific agenda items on assistance to the territories from the UN system; and on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the non self-governing territories. That resolutions on both items have historically been adopted with very little, if any, discussion, is highly unfortunate. In the case UN assistance to the territories, it has been proven that the capacity of the territories to assume more powers of self-government has been significantly enhanced by their access to socio-economic, technical and other programmes of the United Nations. Curiously, the agencies are largely un-represented at the Special Committee sessions when the issue of their assistance to the territories is on the agenda. It has also been made clear that the economic advancement of the territories is an important contributor to the ability of the territory to move towards greater self-government.

Future Implementation of the Decolonisation Mandate

But perhaps the most important issue in the 2010 session of the Special Committee should be the recommendation it sends to the General Assembly to create a new decade to re-generate the momentum necessary in the international community towards a genuine self-determination process leading to actual decolonisation.

According to the "Analysis of Implementation of the United Nations Decolonisation Mandate during the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010) and Future Strategies for Completion" presented at the 2010 decolonisation seminar by governance expert Dr. Carlyle Corbin, some increased attention has been paid by the international community to the “necessity of implementation” of the decolonisation mandate resulting in “action oriented” resolutions adopted by the General Assembly.

But Corbin, who represented the Government of the US Virgin Islands before the Special Committee on Decolonisation for over twenty years, emphasised in his analysis that, “the success of the second international decade had been significantly impeded by the insufficiency of actual implementation where initiatives proposed have not become initiatives completed.” As Corbin observed in the paper, “the major administering powers appear to dismiss the important actions agreed by the international community,” and often “seek to portray colonial reform initiatives (such as internal reviews of territorial constitutions) as examples of decolonisation.”

The issue of implementation of the existing decolonisation mandate remains the best way forward, but this can only be accomplished if the parties concerned, primarily the administering powers and the United Nations system - live up to their international responsibilities as set forth in the United Nations Charter, General Assembly and Economic and Special Council resolutions, and international conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The decisions taken at the 2010 session of the Special Committee on Decolonisation will, in large measure, set the stage for the United Nations to either advance the decolonisation process in future, or to maintain a repetition of process which has seen the disappointing result of only two territories in twenty years achieving a full measure of self-government.

The Special Committee on Decolonisation at its 2010 session has a most formidable task ahead if it makes the tough choice to engage in a constructive dialogue on the true essence of the decolonisation dilemma.

Amer. Samoa Governor Calls for Political Status Modernisation

Now is the time to revisit our relationship with the U.S. says Togiola

Samoa News
 By Fili Sagapolutele fili@samoanews.com
http://www.samoanews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=15832&edition=1275991200

American Samoa’s relationship with the U.S. government is becoming a difficult one with no relief in sight, says Gov. Togiola Tulafono, who calls on the community to revisit this relationship in order to resolve matters dealing with federal influence as American Samoa moves forward to find a better future.

Now is the time for American Samoa to discuss this important issue and for American Samoa to move towards greater self-governance without more outside influence, Togiola said on his weekend radio program.

Although there is a consensus for American Samoa to continue the close relationship with the federal government in the areas such as economic development, the Governor says there will be no relief for the territory in the future unless there is a solid stand on self government.

This means American Samoa should enact laws for itself without the current status, which requires federal approval for any new laws before they are enacted, he said, adding that this requirement is something that he is pushing to be removed.

Whatever laws enacted in American Samoa are created by its people and should not require outside approval, he stated, adding that a big problem now facing the territory is local economic development being affected by laws created outside the territory, without thinking about their impact on American Samoa. He cited, for example the federally mandated minimum wage hikes.

He said he believes that there will be no improvement in the future as a new generation of Americans enters the U.S. Congress and this new generation is not familiar with American Samoa as compared to past Congressional members (and some current ones) who served in World War II and are familiar with the Pacific and their unique needs and circumstances.

He said these past Americans from the 1950s and later years, have been to American Samoa and the Pacific and witnessed the difficulties faced by island residents.

Based on research, Togiola said these Americans made it easy to move issues on American Samoa in Washington, but he noted that that has changed.

According to the Governor, the territory can constantly raise with Washington the point about long standing military service by American Samoans as well as the high number of American Samoan casualties in wars, but no one will consider it anymore.

Togiola says his big concern is that American Samoa has no power to stop a U.S. Supreme Court decision when it comes to our land.

He said current laws require certain Samoan blood percentage to own land and it’s one issue that may be challenged in the Supreme Court if American Samoa’s lands becomes permanent lands of the United States.

The Governor says there is a similar case pending with the court in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and it has not yet reached the Supreme Court, who looks at the entire U.S. and not just one sector. He said American Samoa has made it through the past 110 years, but in the last 20-years many changes have occurred in our relationship with the U.S. and many of those changes are not beneficial to the territory.

Togiola said he expects a lot of criticism regarding his views and statements and many in the opposition are concerned with what will happen to federal grants and programs for American Samoa.

He said these concerns can be addressed if a good agreement is in place with the U.S. so that American Samoa has more self-governance of its own affairs in the areas such as law and operation of the judicial system, which he feels should be in the hands of American Samoans.

The Governor says American Samoa needs to stop the practice of dependence on the federal government and strive for more self reliance. He said this is the big problem he sees — that residents are depending more on others.

Togiola said he raises this issue as part of public discussion, as American Samoa prepares for the two-week Constitutional Convention set to begin on June 21. He encourages the public to share their views on this issue.

Chief Minister: Anguilla more colonized than before

ANGUILLA DAY CELEBRATED ON MONDAY, MAY 31
The Anguillian

While all of its Caribbean neighbours followed their normal work and way of life routine on Monday, May 31, Anguilla celebrated in grand style the 43rd Anniversary of its 1967 revolution in which it broke its political and constitutional links with St. Kitts-Nevis and set out on a long journey to self-determination and separation.

It was only in December 1980 that Britain unilaterally and formally separated Anguilla, granting the island and its daring people Crown Colony status, later re-styled an Overseas Territory. The May 30 Anguilla Day celebration was deferred this year to the following day as the usual date of the historic occasion fell this time on a Sunday.

The main event was the customary official parade at the James Ronald Webster Park, which was held under a heavily-overcast sky and a humid atmosphere, but with a large turnout of uniformed units, many invited guests and other members of the public, as well as the 21 persons selected for awards. The welcome remarks were delivered by the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foster Rogers, who also chaired the proceedings.

The uniformed units comprised contingents from the Royal Anguilla Police Force, Her Majesty’s Prison, Scouts, Cub-Scouts, Guides and Brownies, Pathfinders, Girls Brigade and the Police/Community Band, all under the command of Inspector Elliott Forbes. The parade was inspected by Chief Minister, the Hon. Hubert Hughes, accompanied by recently-appointed Commissioner of Police, Rudolph Proctor.

The inspection was followed by a precision drill by members of the Police Force and a march past of the uniformed bodies during which the salute was taken by the Chief Minister, who was accompanied on the dais by His Excellency Governor Alistair Harrison.

The event, which lasted more than three hours, included reflections on the revolution by Carmen Woods, one of the island’s early Police Officers and an honoured revolutionary heroine; and a poem written about the “Father of the Nation”, Ronald Webster, by noted local poet and freedom fighter, Daisy (Juan) Richardson, and read by radio personality and honoree, Iwandai I. Gumbs.

There were two greetings which preceded the address by the Chief Minister. The first was delivered by Leader of the Opposition and Elected Member for Valley North, the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers. “Our history recalls the resilience of our people in the most trying circumstances and the fact that they remain, in the words of our National Song, ‘a nation proud, strong and free,’ is a testimony to that abiding aspect of our character as a people,” he told his listeners. “One fact of that history, which should be instructive, as we continue to face new challenges, is that Anguilla has been strongest when it is united.”

Mr. Rogers, noting that there were still divisions on the island resulting from the recent electioneering, said it was time to move beyond the politics and to collectively find solutions to the problems confronting Anguilla and its people.

He said there was no better time for accentuating the theme of unity than on Anguilla Day and acknowledged the presence of Revolutionary Leader, Ronald Webster, and a number of others who played significant roles in the revolution. Mr. Rogers called on Government, Opposition and ordinary citizens, to make the day a turning point in the fortunes of Anguillians and to adopt the spirit and unity of the revolution in building “a nation proud, strong and free.”

Elected Member for East End, the Hon. Jerome Roberts, attired in his uniform as a Scout Leader, commended all of the stalwarts who made Anguilla Day possible. “We should be proud to know that, after 43 years, the Father of this nation, James Ronald Webster, a humble man from my district, still remains committed to the progress of this beautiful island we call home,” he said. “I take pride in saying long live Mr. Webster and those heroes and heroines who fought to save this land as ours.”

Mr. Roberts observed that there was a falling away from some of the principles and goals set by the revolution. He called for a re-kindling of what made the people of the island proud Anguillians over the past 43 years and urged families, churches, communities and schools to do their part to promote a spirit of love, unity and achievement.

In an address, read by his step-daughter, Yvonne Price, and previously published in The Anguillian, Revolutionary Leader, Mr. Webster, said the occasion was another milestone in the history of the revolution. “As we reflect on the past 43 years, we can rejoice in the fact that, despite the uncertainties of our economic situation and changes in our social, political and cultural development, I am proud of the contributions and talents of our men and women of courage and vision…who made tremendous contributions to Anguilla by their dedication, loyalty and determination,” he stressed.

Chief Minister, Mr. Hubert) Hughes, speaking without a script, charged that “Anguilla is more colonized 43 years after 1967 than before” and blamed the people of the island for creating the situation as a result of political disharmony and division. In rare statements heard on Anguilla Day, or on any other occasion, he claimed, among other matters, that the late Premier Robert Bradshaw, against whom the Anguillians rebelled, and whom he admired, did not neglect Anguilla. He indicated his belief that St. Kitts itself was neglected by Britain and that Bradshaw’s desire for Anguilla to remain within the fold of St. Kitts-Nevis was simply to preserve the unity of the then Associated State.

Mr. Hughes, who obviously offended some persons, said at the beginning of his address that he would depart from the normal Anguilla Day “situation.” He spent much time speaking on the economic, financial and social difficulties facing the island, which he blamed on the previous administration; the lack of a budget which he said the former British Minister for the Overseas Territories, Chris Bryant, had refused to approve; the refusal of the British Government to sanction loan agreements with the Caribbean Development Bank; and certain problems encountered at the hands of past Governors over the years.

After his exhaustive and sometimes controversial address, Mr. Hughes ended it as follows: “Governor, you got a good outing today. [To] my great leader, Ronald Webster, I had eleven months in his Government. We were overthrown, but it was the best eleven months of my political career.”

Following his address, he presented awards to the 21 nominees, assisted by Mrs. Janice Hodge, Mrs. Murtle Smith and Miss Anguilla 2009/2010, Sandrina Harris.

The awardees, a number of whom were represented by family members, were Thomas Benjamin Smith, Adolphus Vanterpool and Isalee Harrigan for the part they played in the Anguilla Revolution; and the others, awarded for their contribution to social development were: Ashley Brooks (posthumously); Thomas Bryan (posthumously); Joseph Gumbs (posthumously); Mrs. Donice Hodge (posthumously); Alwyn Hodge (posthumously); Renford Hennis (posthumously); Elliott Richardson, Hubert Gumbs, Rev. John A. Gumbs, Rev. Joseph Lloyd; Rev. Menes Hodge; Kenneth (Bob) Harrigan; Walwyn Hodge; Irma Richardson; Venis Simpson, Rondie Webster, Whaldama (Ras B) Brooks; and Iwandai I Gumbs.

Formulating an Economic Policy for the British Virgin Islands

By Benito Wheatley
(Orginially published in the BVI Beacon on May 13 under the title "Moving Government beyond BiWater politics").
 
The recent controversy over the awarding of a water production contract to BiWater highlights the need for the Government to formulate a coherent economic policy to help guide government’s economic decision-making and coordination, and provide a clear economic direction for the Territory as a whole.
 
Currently, the Government’s economic policy amounts to a number of uncoordinated economic initiatives driven by factors other than a carefully crafted economic policy. As a consequence, it is unclear exactly what economic goals it is trying to achieve for the British Virgin Islands (BVI). Establishing a coherent economic policy should help to improve government’s economic decision-making and coordination and provide the society with a better understanding of its economic goals.
 
Formulating a coherent economic policy must begin with an economic vision, followed by a basic set of economic objectives and the development of a package of policy measures for achieving them. This process requires addressing four questions.
 
First, what is the Government’s economic vision for the Territory? To state it plainly, what is the economic future that the Government wants for the BVI. Twenty years from now does the Government envision a Territory still highly dependent on tourism and financial services? If so, does the Government envision more BVIslanders owning hotels and resorts, providing charter boat and plane services, and a substantially smaller number of BVIslanders providing taxi services? Does the Government envision significantly more BVIslanders owning trust companies and law firms, as opposed to simply occupying entry level and middle management positions? What about other sectors and industries? Is there a vision for agriculture and fisheries? What about health tourism or back-office services?
 
Whatever the economic vision may be, it is critical that an economic vision exist upon which a coherent economic policy can be formulated.

The second question to be addressed is, what general economic approach should the government pursue? More specifically, upon what economic and social principles should an economic policy be based? Should the Government pursue an economic policy that broadly seeks to economically empower BVIslanders through preferential treatment in the economy? Or should the Government pursue an economic policy that places local companies and BVIslanders on an equal footing with foreign companies and foreign workers in the economy? This was the essence of the BiWater contract controversy where the UK company was selected over Ocean Conversion (OC), a partially locally owned company, to provide water production services.

Governments around the world have varied in their approach to economic management. In Hong Kong, the government favors a free market economy that is open to foreign competition. The Hong Kong Government is primarily concerned about the efficient delivery of services to the public, as opposed to the origin of the companies or individuals who provide them. By contrast, in India, the Indian Government privileges local companies for contracts and shields domestic industries from foreign competition. The Indian approach emphasizes the economic empowerment of local companies and citizens and the development of domestic industries. In France, the French Government has adopted a mixed approach to economic management. Various sectors of the French economy are open to foreign competition, while others are strategically protected and government contracts are reserved for domestic companies. None of these approaches are perfect and each has its advantages and disadvantages.

In the case of the BVI, the operation of foreign companies in the Territory is necessary for the provision of certain services. However, this is not the case for every sector. In fact, in some sectors, it may not be desirable to allow foreign competitors into the market, particularly where they undermine the growth of a domestic industry.

What is most important to note here is that a government should adopt an economic policy of some type to guide its economic decision-making and coordination and the economic activities of the country it governs. Such a policy must be made clear to the business community and public to clarify their expectations of government and the position of local companies and individuals relative to foreign companies and foreign workers. Importantly, awarding petty contracts to party supporters and family members does not constitute an economic policy.

The third question that must be addressed is, what should the Government’s economic objectives entail? In simple terms, economic objectives are targets the government sets for attaining a desired outcome. Setting economic objectives involves deciding: How many more tourist arrivals are needed per year to sustain tourism growth? How many more international business company registrations are needed per year to sustain financial services growth? How many new local businesses should open per year to significantly increase entrepreneurship? How many new jobs should be created per year to absorb new entrants to the labor market? By what percentage should wages and salaries increase annually to keep pace with the rising cost of living? These are just a few of the areas where economic targets must be set. An in-depth study and analysis of the macro- and microeconomic conditions of the BVI should allow government to sufficiently perform this task.

The fourth and final question to be addressed is: what policy measures are needed to achieve the society’s economic objectives? A policy measure is simply a course of action a government adopts for achieving a stated goal. Policy measures include things like start-up grants for small businesses to encourage entrepreneurship; soft mortgages or land grants for residential construction to encourage home ownership; first right of refusal to local companies for government contracts to help grow domestic industries; tax incentives for foreign companies to attract foreign direct investment; and a number of other measures for economically moving the Territory forward.

In retrospect of the Government’s controversial decision to award BiWater a water production contract, a well-defined and coherent economic policy would have helped to clarify its position, or at the very least, provided a minimum policy standard against which the public could judge the contract’s procurement and the merits of the agreement.

On a final note, recent clashes between the Government and OC over water production contracts are indicative of a long standing problem in the BVI: the politicization of government contracts. By virtue of government’s ability to directly award a contract (i.e., bid, no-bid) and indirectly provide employment through it, or to deny the award of a contract, a ruling party is placed in an unduly politically advantageous position to influence the public. Likewise, certain businesses and individuals can potentially influence elected officials by pledging future support in return for a contract. These power dynamics present the danger of a government contract being used as a political tool for garnering public support or securing business. De-politicizing the awarding of government contracts would help to mitigate theses dangers and encourage impartiality.

In real terms, what this means is that government procurement must become a more objective and balanced process. One means by which to achieve this is the creation of a BVI Procurement Board whose responsibility would be to review bids on government contracts and vet companies. Once completed, the Board would submit its non-binding recommendations and rationale for a vendor to government for consideration. The Board’s recommendations would also be made public at the time of submission.

A body of this kind would be composed of elected representatives from industry organizations and appointed business professors from the Department of Business at the H. Lavity Stoutt Community College. A societally balanced membership would provide the level of objectivity and balance needed for determining the best proposals and the most appropriate vendors for contracts. Not only would this improve transparency and deepen the society’s participation in government’s economic decision-making process, but it would help to avoid the kind of controversies witnessed over the past months between Government and OC.

In conclusion, the Government cannot afford to be ambivalent or obscure about the economic direction of the Territory during these uncertain times. Formulating a coherent economic policy would strengthen Government’s economic decision-making and coordination, and give the people of the BVI a better understanding of the economic goals it has for the Territory. If done thoughtfully, the BVI will become a stronger society economically and be well positioned for a strong economic recovery in the future.

Benito Wheatley is an Analyst in the International Affairs and Services Department at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in Washington, DC. He is also a Researcher for International Affairs Forum Journal, published by the Center for International Relations in Arlington, Virginia. Please direct comments or questions to: Benito_Wheatley@yahoo.com.

Perspectives on the Decolonisation of Guam

THE QUESTION OF GUAM

STATEMENT OF GUAHAN COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
and THE CHAMORRO STUDIES ASSOCIATION

By HOPE A. CRISTOBAL

THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONISATION
Pacific Regional Seminar
Noumea, New Caledonia
18 - 20 May 2010

“Priorities and Concerns of Civil Society Relating to the Decolonization of Guam as a UN Non Self-Governing Territory”

CHAMORU SELF-DETERMINATION PA’GO

I. INTRODUCTION

Hafa Adai! (Greetings) Your Excellency Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Special Committee on Decolonization.

Dangkolu na si Yu’os ma’ase (sincere thank you) for your invitation to participate at this revolving seminar to assess the progress of decolonization and to discuss priorities regarding the Question of Guam on the final year of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism in the 21st century.

Also, I bring warm Hafa Adei greetings from our indigenous Chamorro people to our fellow Kanaky people of New Caledonia. We thank you for graciously hosting this United Nations Pacific Seminar. We extend a heartfelt “Dangkolu na si Yu’os ma’ase” (sincere thank you) for the opportunity to join Your Excellency, the Special Committee and my esteemed fellow delegates today.

As you may know, the Chamorro people of the Mariana Islands have cultural and linguistic ties to the Kanaky people of New Caledonia through our common Austronesian heritage that spans Oceania. As peace loving peoples of the great Pacific, we hope one day to be able to share in a history of freedom from colonial dominance espoused by this Special Committee and the rest of the UN body.

I am Hope Alvarez Cristobal, a Chamorro former Senator of Guam. I am here as a representative of Guåhan Coalition for Peace and Justice, a Guam based coalition made up of grassroots organizations advocating for the political, cultural, social, environmental and human rights of the people of Guam. We formed in September 2006 as a result of the announcement of the United States-Japan Realignment Initiatives signed in May 2006 in our awareness and desire (consistent with our traditionally matrilineal social order) to organize and give voice to concerns of women and female children in a highly militarized environment.

Our focus on peace and justice is central in light of the ongoing issue of the denial of our Chamorro people’s inalienable human right of self-determination and decolonization of Guam as a modern-day colony of the United States. Particular emphasis is made on keeping Guam, our island home, safe and sustainable for our children and generations to come. The Guåhan Coalition for Peace and Justice is comprised of the following member organizations: Chamorro Studies Association; National Association of Social Workers, Guam Chapter; Conscious Living; Guam’s Alternative Lifestyle Association; and Nasion Chamoru.

II. THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND

Guam’s unincorporated (permanent colony) status designation under the 1950 Organic Act of Guam legitimized US military land takings with rights of eminent domain of the only 147,000 acres of land—with only 116.5 miles of natural shoreline available to it for all purposes. Of this 147,000 acres, the military currently possesses 40,000 acres constituting 27.21% of the island’s landmass with the US National Park Service possessing 695 acres for 0.47% and the US Fish & Wildlife Service currently possessing 385 acres for 0.26% of the island. The local government possesses 37,673.36 acres for 25.6% of that total and with private lands consisting of only 68,246 acres for 46.43% of Guam’s land mass. [Ref. legislative Resolution 258-30 (COR)].

With a history of US land takings and the possibility of more land condemnation through the current US militarization plans, the 29th Guam Legislature passed public law 29-113 which clarifies that the disposition of public lands is exclusively the purview of the Guam Legislature and not the US military. This law stipulates that duly enacted legislation by the Guam Legislature is needed to authorize “the acquisition by condemnation or otherwise of private property” by means of Congressional appropriation to acquire property for public use.

The current 30th Guam Legislature also passed another law which tasks the local government’s Guam First Commission to determine which land the Federal Government may intend to lease or sublease, exchange for other land, or purchase, and to report their findings to the Guam Legislature and the Governor of Guam. This law also requires the Legislature’s approval of any federal acquisition of Government of Guam property, whether by lease, sub-lease, exchange or sale.

Guam’s colonial status continues to pave the way for US application of federal laws over our air space and sea lanes; our 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone; all our resources, control of exit and entry of our borders, control of our land, the environment and whatever can be defined as “a possession of but not a part of the United States.” It is clear that the Guam Legislature is now struggling as it finds itself with little power to protect local government assets under the laws of the administering power. For a small colonial people, the alienation of property by laws of the colonial power is one of the fundamental tenets of colonialism. In Guam, so much of the alienation has occurred through military seizure—but other forms of alienation have the same effect.

III. SECOND INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR THE ERADICATION OF COLONIALISM

Mr. Chairman, people of the 16 remaining NSGTs still under the yoke of colonialism have been denied the benefits of decolonization as provided by the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [UN Resolution 1514 (XV)] and that despite the Special Committee’s diligent work emphasized in the proclamation of the two International Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism the world’s political map have not had any major transformation. We can honestly say that in the case of Guam, rather than the eradication of colonialism, the US administering Power has deepened its colonial roots.

What we find unacceptable, Mr. Chairman, is that the administering power’s WWII adversary, Guam’s brutal occupier of WWII, Japan, is now complicit in Guam’s modern day colonization and militarization through its joint Bi-lateral Agreement with the U.S. With respect to Guam, the Special Committee’s work was not only stymied; rather, it has been made to fail in its mission to make colonialism a fact of the past—in not having developed a programme of work for the decolonization of the NSGT of Guam in view of the US’s active, massive militarization plans. Included is the failure in dispatching a UN visiting mission at the time Guam was actively negotiating its political status over two decades ago; and today, with US plans for our militarization.

For 21st century Guam, it is déjà vu old-style colonialism again. This time it is not 17th C. Spain but the US administering Power utilizing its military forces in a kind of “reduccion” process of “subduing, converting and gathering the natives through the establishment of missions and stationing of soldiers to protect those missions.” (Ref. Rob Wilson, 21st Annual Conference, “Crosscurrents: New Directions in Pacific and Asian Studies,” University of Hawaii, Manoa, March 10, 2010.) The exploitation of our colonial status as a people, U.S. militarization, assimilationist immigration policies, the rising tide of cultural genocide, environmental degradation and contamination, the dispossession of our lands, etc., are direct violations of our rights as NSG people under:

a. The UN Charter, in particular, Articles 1, 55 and 73e which addresses the rights of peoples in non self-governing territories who have not yet attained a full measure of self-government, and commands states administering them to “recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants are paramount.” Furthermore, that administering powers, accept as a “sacred trust” the obligation to develop self-government in the territories, taking due account of the political aspirations of the people.

b. UN Resolutions 1514 that states, the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the UN and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.

c. UN Resolution 1541 affirming three ways NSGTs could attain a full measure of self-government that must be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the peoples of NSGTs.

d. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—the latest UN international human rights instrument to explicitly expand the universe of the holders of the right of self-determination with its Article 3 that specifically recognizes, using the classic formulation of the right of self-determination enshrined in the 1966 Human Rights Covenants, that indigenous peoples hold the right.

e. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (known collectively as the 1966 Human Rights Covenants) that enshrine self-determination as a right.

f. And, other relevant UN documents on decolonization.

Clearly, the US continues to behave contrary to its concrete UN obligations as the administering Power over Guam. There is no mistaking that US dominance and subordination of Guam is a consequence of US military power dynamics over the Asia-Pacific region. And, without the United Nations assertion of its moral authority and oversight of its non self-governing territory of Guam, our home island and our people will continue to be treated as inferior having no sovereignty or agency in relation to US foreign policy and security interests. Gone unchallenged, the possibility of a free, decolonized and self-governing Guam will be sealed and buried under by our own administering Power.

At his opening statement of the House Armed Services Committee hearing on March 25, 2010, Congressman Ike Skelton spoke about the rebasing of U.S. Marines from Japan to Guam as “one of the largest movements of military assets in decades”—estimated to cost over ten billion dollars. He further stated that the changes being planned as part of that move will not only affect U.S. bilateral relationship with Japan; they will shape U.S. strategic posture throughout the critical Asia-Pacific region for 50 years or more. Congressman Skelton stated that the US “must be proactively engaged in the Asia-Pacific region on multiple fronts,” and that U.S. actions may well influence the choices and actions of others.”

For Guam, our exclusion from the decision made about the massive militarization of our island home through US military expansion and restructuring of its bases and military operations is unconscionable. Moreover, we have had no choice and no options offered vis-à-vis our colonial status or US actions having political implications on our colonial status. Guam is a colony and remains a colony until the Chamorro people is allowed to exercise our human right of self-determination and is allowed to decolonize.

IV. OUR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. military’s militarization plans bodes great harm for the people and our island home environment. These plans include the construction of facilities and structure to support the full spectrum of warfare training for some 8,600 marines (and their dependants) being relocated from Okinawa to Guam; the construction of a deep-draft wharf in Guam’s only harbor to provide for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, destroying over 287,000 sqm (71 acres) of healthy and endangered coral reef; the construction of an Army Missile Defense Task Force modeled on the Marshall Islands-based Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, for the practice by US military personnel of intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles; the forcible land-grabbing of an additional 2,200 acres of indigenous Chamorro land; the desecration of Pagat, one of Guam’s oldest ancient villages dating back to 2,000 B.C.; the dangerous over-tapping of Guam’s water system to include the drilling of 22 additional wells; and the denial of the most fundamental human right of the Chamorro people of Guam to self-determination.

The militarization plan calls for an alarming 80,000 new residents within the next five years. These new residents include the 8,600 Marines and 1,000 Army troops with 9,000 of their dependents and large numbers of construction workers that will add to our current 180,000 residents. This is obviously not about demographics alone as we see US hegemony flourish and cultural genocide work for the administering power. As non-US citizens after WWII, we were over 95% of the population. As United States citizens 50 years later, our population is reduced to 42% (2000 Census). Five years ago, we comprised some 35% of our home population. But with the new US plan, the Chamorro population can be expected to drop to around 24%! This is perhaps the most plausible reason why all information impacting our people’s lives were kept secret until the official release of the draft environmental impact study last November 20, 2009.

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) was intended to, “assess the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed military activities” (DEIS, Executive Summary, Abstract) for the relocation of US marines to Guam, enhancement of infrastructure and logistic capabilities, improvement of pier/waterfront infrastructure for transient US Navy nuclear aircraft carrier (CVN) and placement of US Army ballistic missile defense (BMD) task force. It is supposed to report the overall impacts that the military’s plans will have on Guam’s environment. It was a document of 11,000 pages and we were given a 90-day window to comment (ending Feb. 17, 2010) with a Final EIS to be completed in July and a Record of Decision to be released in 30 days.

The selective and exclusive sharing of information on the military’s plans prevented our full participation and served to silence our voices in this critical process. The community scrambled to respond to the 11,000-page report within the rigid schedule. The “record speed” of a two-year environmental impact study for such unprecedented militarization of a non self-governing territory was obviously suspect. We were not told about the 80,000 people or that the US had planned to go outside their existing footprint. At the public outreach meetings, hundreds spoke resoundingly against the military’s plans. At the close of the public comment window, the military received over 10,000 comments from various indigenous Chamorro groups, community members and stakeholders and other external stakeholders.

The fear of being overwhelmed by the construction of a new US Marine base has permeated the community. In reference to the local government’s costs grossly underfunded in the plan, Lt. Governor Michael Cruz, M.D. who himself is a Colonel in the Army National Guard, stated “Our nation knows how to find us when it comes to war and fighting for war, but when it comes to war preparations—which is what the military buildup essentially is—nobody seems to know where Guam is.” Government officials put the total direct and indirect costs of coping with the military buildup at about $3 billion, including $1.7 billion to improve roads and $100 million to expand the already overburdened public hospital.

Last January 22, the 30th Guam Legislature adopted a resolution expressing the “strong and abiding opposition of the Guam Legislature and the People of Guam to any use of eminent domain [condemnation] for the purpose of obtaining Guam lands for either the currently planned military buildup or other U.S. Federal Government purposes, or both.” Copies were transmitted to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, the President Pro-Tem of the U.S. Senate, to UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, and other officials. Another resolution (No. 275-30 (LS)) was introduced and adopted relative to presenting to President Obama and the US Congress, the sentiments expressed by the people of Guam regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Guam military build-up; to enumerating the findings of the Legislature that have led to the conclusion that the DEIS is grossly flawed; to providing a list of essential elements which must be favorably resolved; to restate Guam’s agenda of priority concerns relative to federal-territorial issues that must be addressed concurrently with the buildup; and to asserting additional findings on actionable items relative to the DEIS.

Of grave concern is the fact that Chamorro self-determination and decolonization was not even addressed by the military in the DEIS and the fact that decisions have been made in the context of a huge power imbalance in which the US has the ultimate decision-making power with the social, cultural and political implications to the Chamorro community being grossly understated. It is no secret that the US and its military representatives are fully cognizant of the irreversible and significant consequences that their decision will have on its colonial people. Broad concerns relating to local infrastructure, environmental, labor and workforce, socio-economic and health and human services are being discussed among government and military officials. But the difference is: The US has completely ignored the negative implications to its colonial people’s human, political and legal right to self-determination. Just as select private businesses collectively predict positive gain by Guam’s militarization, the Chamorro people alone have historically and will predictably bear the unequal proportion of the burden.

On the last day of the public comment period, the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued the lowest possible rating of the DEIS of “environmentally unsatisfactory” and providing “inadequate information.” In its strongly worded six-page letter, the US EPA stated that “The impacts are of sufficient magnitude that..…action should not proceed as proposed and improved analyses are necessary to ensure the information in the EIS is adequate to fully inform decision makers.” Specifically, the EPA stated that the military’s plan would lead to:

a. A shortfall in Guam’s water supply, resulting in low water pressure that would expose people to water borne diseases from sewage.

b. Increased sewage flows to wastewater plants already failing to comply with the Clean Water Act regulations.

c. More raw sewage spills that would contaminate the water supply and the ocean.

d. “Unacceptable impacts” to the 287,000 sqm (71 acres) of a high quality coral reef.

But even with this indictment of its draft EIS, the military continues with its military expansion and restructuring plans today.

In Congress, Guam’s delegate introduced a bill that would provide for public education on Guam’s political status options. This bill was amended in the House of Representatives and now includes the other two NSGT’s: American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands and would “include but not (be) limited to the 3 internationally recognized options.

The implication is that the educational program could also include other options, albeit not defined in the bill. There is no reference to any referendums nor provision of a specific budget although Congressional estimate of the costs is some $2 million in the next 5 years for all the territories. It remains to be seen what will happen in the US Senate.

If the draft Guam Commonwealth bill or the Guam War Reparations bill or the bill to amend the US Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (to give compensation to the “down winders” (Guam included)) are any example, it will end up taking many forms over many years without resolution or action. Only time will tell. And, time, Mr. Chairman is not on our side.

V. OBSTACLES/OPPORTUNITIES/RECOMMENDATIONS

The Question of Guam shall remain a question of Chamorro self-determination and decolonization for Guam. As a process of decolonization, the exercise of Chamorro self-determination must necessarily occur outside the influences of the administering Power and with the cooperation of the United Nations.

We make the following recommendations to this seminar:

1. That the inalienable right of the Chamorro people of Guam to self-determination in conformity with all relevant UN documents be given utmost priority by the Special Committee on Decolonization in view of the administering power’s massive militarization planned from 2010 to 2014.


2. That a customized process of decolonization for the Chamorro people of Guam be immediately adopted in view of the severe irreversible impacts on Guam by the US administering power.

3. That an investigation be conducted as to the compliance of the administering power with its treaty obligations under the Charter of the United Nations to promote the economic and social development and to preserve the cultural identity of the Territories as related earlier in this text.

4. That a study must be conducted on the implications of US militarization plans on Guam’s decolonization and that UN funding be allocated immediately.

5. That the UN denounce the militarization of the non-self-governing territory of Guam without the consent of the people of Guam due to irreparable harm to the inalienable human rights of the Chamorro people and interests of the people of Guam.

6. That a work programme be adopted by the Special Committee to carry out its objectives for the decolonization of Guam.

VI. CLOSING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and delegations for the opportunity to make this presentation. My people’s journey towards decolonization is at a very critical juncture. We can only rely on the United Nations to assure that the US live up to its obligations under the United Nations Charter and to its promise of self-determination and decolonization for the people of Guam.

American Samoa Governor Addresses UN Pacific Seminar

Governor Togiola Tulafono presents American Samoa’s stand on self-government to UN decolonization seminar

SAMOANEWS.COM
(BASED ON PRESS RELEASE)— NOUMEA, New Caledonia

Gov. Togiola Tulafono on Tuesday presented American Samoa’s stance on non self-governing territories at the opening of the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization’s Pacific seminar in this French territory.

Togiola, in his statement to the committee, summarized the history of American Samoa’s experience under the protection of the United States for the past 110 years, and the steps the Samoans have taken, which clearly indicate their desire to move towards greater self governance and self determination.

“In the past, American Samoa has asked this committee to remove American Samoa from the list of colonized territories because we felt our ‘unincorporated and ‘unorganized’ status was akin to being a self governing country,” said Togiola.

“While that position still holds today, I believe, that given the history, it is time that a more definitive work plan is put in place to forge a more collaborative approach between the Territory and our protector, the United States of America, for moving forward on issues of political status, local autonomy, self governance, and economic development.”

Togiola then directed the Committee’s attention to the history of American Samoa’s political development beginning with the crafting of the Deed of Cession as the original guidance from ‘our forefathers’ that the land, the language and the culture were to be protected and preserved for Samoans.

He pointed out the necessity to advance once again the process of change because of his concern with the rise in the federalization that has adversely affected American Samoa’s political and economic growth.

The Governor noted the struggle with regards to minimum wages; restrictions on grants and aid; the threat of federalization of immigration and customs; and a host of other restrictions that are affecting the territory without American Samoa’s choice or voice.

“One of the challenges we deal with everyday is the lack of technical assistance and expertise to truly understand the effects of federal laws on our small Territorial economy and form of government,” he said.

“Another challenge is the increasing responsibilities of Territories to comply with federal requirements at levels that are expected of … States, and at times, in cases where considerations should move for exempting the Territories from these requirements.”

Togiola informed the Seminar participants of the preparations by American Samoa for its constitutional review in June, with the establishment of the Constitution Review Office, the Constitutional Review Committee and the educational outreach undertaken to engage the people and explain the issues and the process, especially to the students from the college and the high schools.

“American Samoa stands upon the cusp of a process which may result in sweeping changes to our political landscape,” said Togiola.

“While we are mindful and respectful of our ties with the United States, I have been encouraging our people to take a long term view about our situation, bearing in mind the protection of those things that make us Samoans.”

During the presentation of his statement, Governor Togiola extended an invitation to the Chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonization, Donatus Keith St. Aimee (of Saint Lucia) to be his personal guest to observe the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in the month of June, so he may report back to his Committee on the process and the expressions of the constitutional review. St. Aimee assured Togiola that he is grateful for the invitation, and if he can, he would like very much to accept the invitation.

At the closing of the two-day seminar on Thursday, Togiola asked the U.N. Committee, through its chairman to not focus solely on the political decolonization of the Territories.

“A thorough examination of decolonization that has taken place, especially as regards to the small island states, uncovers that while political decolonization is achieved, these states often times maintain a high degree of dependence upon their administering power for economic survival. This can be seen and characterized as economic colonization,” the governor said.

“For decolonization to be meaningful, states must have the ability to provide for themselves, or at least be able to make their own way in the world. This economic decolonization may ultimately prove to be more challenging than decolonizing politically,” he said.

He also expressed his sincere gratitude to Aimee and the committee for the invitation to appear before the committee. Togiola further thanked Phillippe Gomes, President of New Caledonia, for the wonderful hospitality and generosity shown to American Samoa all throughout the seminar.

Before departing New Caledonia on Saturday (New Caledonia time), Togiola will be conducting follow up meetings with Director General of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Dr. Jimmie Rodgers, and his staff on technical assistance matters important to the Territory.

(Source: Governor’s Office, American Samoa)

INTENSIFICATION OF DECOLONISATION PROCESS DISCUSSED AT UN PACIFIC SEMINAR

Adapted from UN press releases and interviews with non self-governing territory representatives, experts and diplomats from UN member States who participated in the Seminar.

The United Nations (UN) Special Committee on Decolonisation held its annual regional seminar in Noumea, New Caledonia, from 18 to 20 May 2010. The seminar, hosted by the Territorial Government of New Caledonia in concurrence with France as the administering Power, was conducted within the framework of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010). It was chaired by Donatus Keith St. Aimee, the Chairman of the Special Committee.

This year marks the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, as well as the fiftieth anniversary of the General Assembly Decolonisation Declaration. A key objective of the seminar was to help the Special Committee assess progress made in the decolonisation process in today’s world, with a particular emphasis on the Pacific region.

In this connection, the participants heard the views of representatives of non self-governing territories so as to reconfirm the commitment of the international community towards achieving the decolonisation objectives in the remainder of the Decade and especially the chartering of the way forward. The deliberations served as a basis for conclusions and recommendations which will be considered by the Special Committee at its forthcoming substantive session in June and subsequently transmitted to the UN General Assembly.

Participants included a delegation of the Special Committee and other United Nations Member States; representatives from governments of the non-self-governing territories, administering Powers, organisations of civil society based in the Territories, as well as a number of experts from both the Pacific and the Caribbean regions.

The current membership of the Special Committee consists of the following 29 Member States: Antigua and Barbuda; Bolivia; Chile; China; Congo; Côte d’Ivoire; Cuba; Dominica; Ecuador; Ethiopia; Fiji; Grenada; India; Indonesia; Iran; Iraq; Mali; Nicaragua; Papua New Guinea; Russian Federation; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Sierra Leone; Syria; Timor-Leste; Tunisia; United Republic of Tanzania; and Venezuela.

DAY ONE
Opening Session

In a message to open the Pacific Regional Seminar, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged all involved to undertake “fresh and creative efforts” towards full implementation of decolonisation. In a message delivered by Laura Vaccari, Chief of the Decolonisation Unit of the of the UN Department of Political Affairs, the Secretary-General described Timor-Leste’s successful quest for independence and two referenda held in Tokelau as highlights of the preceding Decade. “Nonetheless, 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories remain on the [United Nations] list,” the Secretary-General said. “It is essential for the people concerned to understand the options regarding their political status and to be able to exercise their right to freely choose their future.”

Welcoming the seminar particpants, Special Committee Chairman Donatus St. Aimee (Saint Lucia) said that the Seminar was the last of the series planned for the Second Decade and as such was an important opportunity to assess the implementation of its mandate. He noted that the Seminar was being held in a Territory that was going through a challenging and complex process of determining its political future, in close cooperation with the administering Power, France. “The Special Committee regards the hosting of the Seminar as a significant manifestation of the improved cooperation between the administering Power and the [Special] Committee in advancing the decolonisation process in general and in the Pacific region in particular,” he said.

Welcoming participants on behalf of the Government of New Caledonia, President M. Philippe Gomes said all the Territory’s major political actors — the High Commissioner of France, the President and Vice-President of the Congress, and the Presidents of the Assemblies of the three Provinces — welcomed the holding of the Seminar in New Caledonia. He said New Caledonia’s current path towards self-determination had not been easy and that was one of the reasons why holding the Seminar in the Territory was important — so the Special Committee could confirm through first-hand discussions and exchanges the process and manner in which the process was taking place.

Also welcoming participants, the High Commissioner of France, representing the Administering Power, said that the support his country had provided for the event highlighted its commitment to the United Nations in the area of decolonisation. He expressed hope that the visit would help the Special Committee measure socio-economic progress in the Territory and the willingness of the community to build a common destiny based on shared values.

Substantive Sessions

The two meetings held on Day 1 of the Seminar following the opening session focused on the resolution of the remaining challenges for Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Pacific — American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia, Pitcairn and Tokelau.

DONATUS ST. AIMEE (St. Lucia), Special Committee Chairman, said in his keynote address that 50 years since the Declaration’s adoption, and after two Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism, the fact that 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories remained on the list suggests the need for “creative thinking” to move forward. “At this seminar we are going to assess the socio-economic and political developments in the Territories with a view to working out, in cooperation with the administering Powers and representatives of the Territories, a realistic, action-oriented programme of work on a case-by-case basis for the way forward in advancing the decolonisation process.”

He expressed hope that the Seminar would give participants from Non-Self-Governing Territories the type of information and options available to make an informed choice. “Because it is not for the [United Nations] to determine the best outcomes,” he continued. “The [United Nations] is primarily concerned with whether choices are made freely by the people, based on appropriate information and understanding.” The Special Committee wished to listen closely to what the peoples concerned had to say, in the hope of offering proposals to the General Assembly, on a case by case basis, he said.

“Each [non-self-governing territory] still on the [United Nations] decolonisation list has a unique mix of circumstances, often involving quite complex political issues,” he said. “It is essential that ‘creative thinking’ that is sensitive to the circumstances is used by all concerned in addressing these issues, as there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution.”

As an example relevant to the Pacific, he noted that the wishes of small island States needed to reflect their unique vulnerabilities in terms of survival in the modern world. “Today, major issues of sustainability — in economic, environmental and social terms — confront everyone, but especially smaller, more vulnerable societies,” he said.

The Chair noted that, in 2010, it was the responsibility of the Special Committee to bring those issues to the forefront, and the challenge for everyone was to think within the context of present realities and sustainable futures. The Seminar would assess the progress of decolonisation actions at the international level, measures undertaken by the United Nations in cooperation with the administering Powers, as well as the impact of developmental activities and programmes carried out by the Organisation’s specialized agencies and other bodies, as well as non-governmental organisations in the Territories.

“We also need to evaluate the Committee’s role in following the impact of the economic and social developments on the constitutional and political advancement of the [Non-Self-Governing Territories], as well as its efforts aimed at ensuring the full cooperation of the administering Powers in this matter,” he said. “I trust that after these deliberations we can come up with a plan for the way forward, as neither the work of the Special Committee nor the process of decolonisation end with this Seminar or with the Second Decade. There is clearly the need for additional work, focused work, if we are to come up with some success stories and move into the future,” he concluded.

Remaining Challenges in the Pacific Region

PHILIPPE GOMES, President of the Government of New Caledonia, opened the substantive discussion by recalling that the Territory had been close to civil war in 1986, before both sides had “resumed the thread of dialogue” and taken the chance to return to peace. The Matignon and Nouméa Accords had engaged the Territory’s people on the path of declared and assumed decolonisation, he said.

Describing New Caledonia’s “unique” process, he said it was based on several principles, including the recognition of the identity and legitimacy of both the original Kanak peoples and those who had come later from elsewhere. The process affirmed the complex history that all the people of New Caledonia shared, and brought them together around a common destiny. “We have a rendezvous with ourselves for a shared future,” the President concluded.

VICTOR TUTUGORO of the Political Bureau of the pro-independence Front de Libération National Kanak Socialistse (FLNKS) expressed his appreciation on behalf of the Territory’s indigenous peoples for bringing the Seminar to New Caledonia, and for the attention given by the United Nations since its addition to the decolonisation list in 1986.

He said that, in spite of efforts, achieving economic, social and community balance in New Caledonia remained a major challenge, pointing to many indicators showing that development in the provinces of Northern and Loyalty Islands lagged behind that of Southern Province. At the conclusion of the Second International Decade, it was worth considering an extension into a third Decade, given that the Kanak people, and others around the world, still needed the assistance of the Special Committee and the United Nations system to pursue decolonisation to its end.

There followed a general discussion on the decolonisation process in the Pacific, and New Caledonia in particular, with participants particularly focused on socio-economic issues.

The Chairman noted that the colonial legacy was often one of uneven development, with former colonial cities and centres often starting from a “higher base” of social and economic infrastructure development than surrounding districts, and thereby creating challenges for post-decolonisation administrations.

The importance of education also featured strongly in discussion, with several participants noting that it was not only a driver of economic development but also a mechanism for ensuring the protection of minority or indigenous languages and cultures.

In the context of New Caledonia, the President added that despite a free school system where graduation numbers were rising, indicators for Kanak students remained a challenge. He outlined a number of initiatives designed to better adapt the school system to social, cultural and geographical challenges, noting that education was one of the legislative competencies being transferred to the New Caledonia legislature.

Several experts and representatives of civil society presented papers on decolonisation processes underway worldwide including the Pacific territories of Guam and Pitcairn along with Gibraltar and various territories in the Caribbean region. in order to inform and enhance the Special Committee’s work in relation to New Caledonia and the Pacific more broadly.

EDWARD P. WOLFERS, Expert from Australia, described the concepts of self-determination and decolonisation as close in meaning but not interchangeable. Discussing the history of the decolonisation process in the Pacific, he drew particular attention to the “home-grown” peculiarities of constitution-making in Samoa and Papua New Guinea, noting that those processes did not owe their authority to the laws of the former colonial Power. Rather, they embodied the exchange of experiences and ideas, involving as they did various forms of regional cooperation and collaboration. In conclusion, he made a number of recommendations relating to clarifying the role of self-determination in achieving decolonisation and providing greater transparency and accountability in all aspects of the process in order to ensure that the relevant information reached the people in the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories.

SARIMIN JACQUES BOENGKIH of the Agence Kanak de Developpement said that, with the transfer of power, New Caledonia could exercise some level of self-governance. With the Territory on a path to becoming an independent State, it needed good governance as well as educational programmes focusing on raising public awareness among the indigenous peoples. He underlined that New Caledonia was eligible for assistance from United Nations agencies, and requested their help with economic and social development.

YOKO ORYU, an Expert from Japan, provided a comparative analysis of the decolonisation processes in the French overseas departments in the Caribbean and that of New Caledonia, stressing that the growing prominence of the issue in the latter Territory was creating increasing discussion in the international community.

HOPE A. CRISTOBEL of the Guahan and Chamorro Studies Association, deplored the situation of Guam’s Chamorro people who had been dispossessed of their land and were losing their identity as a result of a United States military build-up in the Territory. She proposed that the Special Committee give the utmost priority to Chamorro self-determination, in conformity with the relevant United Nations documents.

HERBERT FORD of the Pitcairn Islands Study Centre recounted the recent transformations and current challenges facing the people of Pitcairn, including the restructuring of its governance system and the provision of human rights protections under a new constitution, ratified in March 2010. He said the independence option was hardly possible for Pitcairn in light of its dependence on supplies from New Zealand and its subsistence on garden produce and fishing. He highlighted as possible ways forward for Pitcairn the other self-determination options of United Nations trusteeship, or retaining a connection with New Zealand similar to that administering Power’s relationship with Tokelau.

CARLYLE CORBIN, Independent Expert from the Caribbean (US Virgin Islands) presented “An Analysis of Implementation of the United Nations Decolonisation Mandate during the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010) and Future Strategies for Completion.” The analysis was a follow-up to Dr. Corbin’s “Mid-Term Assessment of the Level of Implementation of the Plan of Action of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2005) presented to the UN Caribbean Regional Seminar in St. Vincent and the Grenadines in 2005. He had done the initial assessment of the implementation of the decolonisation mandate of the first International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (1991-2000) in presentations to the Pacific Regional Seminar in the Marshall Islands, and to the Caribbean Regional Seminar in Cuba in 2001, respectively.

In the paper, he outlined the legislative authority for the two international decades which were designed to focus attention on implementing the decolonisation mandate. In this connection, he alluded to the actions called for in the decolonisation resoluitions of the UN General Assembly and of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) during the two decades, along with the recommendations of the representatives of nthe territories offered at the regional seminars during the period.

He emphasized the importance of disseminating information and the potential role that United Nations information centres could play in that regard. He recalled that the UN General Assembly had recognised self-determination as a human rights issue, and had advocated for collaboration between the Special Committee and relevant United Nations bodies including the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, among others. He said the Seminars were possibly the most important outcomes of the two Decades since they allowed a cross-fertilization of ideas. He also called attention to the disconnection between United Nations resolutions requiring action on decolonisation, and the budgetary and resource allocations needed to ensure implementation of those resolutions.

On future strategies, he called for a new decade which would focus non implementation of the excellent actions already adopted by the international community with an updated plan of action based on the involvement of the wider UN system of organisations which all have a role to play. He also supported a more consistent role of outside actors, including the designation of an Independent Expert/Special Rapporteur, similar to the methodology of the Human Rights Council, who would undertake critical analyses of the situation on the ground in the individual territories. He noted that the Expert would dialogue with the members of the Special Committee in an interactive dialogue similar to that utilised by the Third Committee of the General Assembly.

JOSEPH BOSSANO, Opposition Leader of Gibraltar, also raised the issue of disseminating information on decolonisation, saying it was insufficient to adequately advance the process unless it was supported by dialogue among all parties. He said the Special Committee could play a more consistent role in following up on the issues and concerns raised at the Seminars.

DAY TWO

Pacific Region

The Special Committee continued its deliberations on Day 2 with discussions on challenges in the Pacific, Caribbean and elsewhere, as well as the broader role of the United Nations in the decolonisation process.

TOGIOLA TULAFANO, Governor of American Samoa, made the first presentation of the day, recalling that, in the past, the Territory had requested the Special Committee to remove it from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories because its “unincorporated” and “unorganized” status was akin to that of a self-governing Territory. While it held the same position today, the time had come for a more definitive work plan to force a more collaborative approach between the Territory and the administering Power, the United States, in moving forward on issues of political status, local autonomy, self-governance and economic development.

He noted the affinity of the Territory’s people with the administering Power, manifested in a significant number of American Samoans serving in the United States armed forces. He also emphasized that the territory exercised control over its own immigration and customs (unlike other non self-governing territories under US administration). However, there was cause for worry that control over these two administrative competencies could be taken away by the US through “federalisation.” He cited the example of US “federalisation” of immigration and labour controls previously exercised by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).

[The CNMI is a US – administered non self-governing territory in the Pacific which is not on the UN list, but whose weakened autonomy would place it below the threshold of full internal self-government. – OTR]

The American Samoa governor also commented on the unilateral application of US federal minimum wage laws to the territory which have caused serious, perhaps irreparable, economic damage. He lamented that the absence of federal technical assistance and expertise to help American Samoans truly understand the effect of federal laws on the Territory’s economy and its form of government further exacerbated the situation.

Those issues could be resolved by applying a clearly specified, consistent principle as to how the Territory would be treated in the future, he said. To that end, a constitutional committee was preparing proposals to be taken up by the Territory’s Constitutional Convention in June. He expressed hope that the questions of self-governance, self-determination and increased local autonomy would be at the top of the list. He also stressed the importance of providing assistance and training on issues critical to the Pacific region. In that connection, he requested the Special Committee to make visit American Samoa during its Constitutional Convention.

FAIPULE KURESA NASAU, Ulu of Tokelau said the outcome of the second referendum on free association with New Zealand, which had not met the two-thirds majority, may have been the result of concerns that self-determination might have meant severing ties with the Government and people of New Zealand, which Tokelau did not want to do. Remaining on the list of non self-governing territories, Tokelau was very conscious of its right to self-determination and aspired to return to that issue in the near future, he said. For the time being, however, self-determination considerations must take second place to the pressing needs of economic development, he said, expressing hope that the upcoming negotiations on the next economic support arrangement would conclude successfully and help address those needs.

DAVID PAYTON, Director, Office of the Administrator of Tokelau (New Zealand), elaborated on the Territory’s situation, stressing his country’s commitment to delivering quality services and infrastructure, including transport, power, education and health. Highlighting the difficulty of delivering services to Tokelau due to its remoteness and small population of less than 1,500 people, he asked how the principles of equity and viability could be applied to the process of decolonisation.

He said there was a need to think hard about how to proceed in Tokelau, bearing in mind the difficult situation in which Niue now found itself following its move to free association with New Zealand several years ago. “It is likely to be necessary for Tokelau’s leaders to make hard decisions and set priorities that will require some preferred activities to be set aside,” he said. He said that finding the right balance will determine the well-being of Tokelau and its people. “Decolonisation will be a factor in this dynamic process, but only a small part of it,” he concluded.

Caribbean Region

STEVE MCFIELD, representative of the Cayman Islands, said a new Constitution had been formally promulgated in November 2009, establishing the post of Premier for the fist time, among other changes. The Constitution had been approved by a large majority in a special referendum. As affirmed during the general elections of May 2009, the territorial government had no popular mandate to pursue full political independence, he said, adding that its attendance at the Seminar should be seen as an attempt to make its position clear and distinct.

CARLYLE CORBIN, Independent Expert, presented a paper on “Challenges to the Attainment of Full Self-Government for Caribbean Non-Self-Governing Territories under United States Administration.” He said that there were important similarities to be taken into account among the dependency governance models among the Caribbean and Pacific territories under US administration. In this connection, he made reference to Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands in the Caribbean, and American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific.

Discussing the US Virgin Islands, he said that a 1993 referendum on political status options had provided “an excessive number of seven alternatives” which had contributed to a lack of clarity on the part of the electorate resulting in the failure to achieve the required 50 per cent of registered voters, with the territory reverting to the status quo by default. More recently, a Constitutional Convention had produced a draft constitution in 2010 which was “not designed to address the colonial status nor provide any serious devolution of authority” as was the case with the 1993 political status process. He advised that the proposed constitution was presently under consideration of the US Congress for approval.

Highlighting the importance of education in the decolonisation process, he said other measures currently before Congress included a bill on funding educational programmes on political status options in American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands, as well as a referendum measure for Puerto Rico.

Other Non-Self-Governing Territories

FADEL KAMAL, Representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Polisario Front) speaking on the question of Western Sahara, said it was regrettable that the fiftieth anniversary of the Decolonisation Declaration, and the end of the Second International Decade, had passed by without the Saharawi people exercising their right to self-determination. “The Saharawi people rightly feel that their legitimate aspirations have been overtaken by political expediency and a meek United Nations system that is seemingly unwilling or unable to deliver on its promise,” he said.

He said the United Nations must ensure that Morocco abided by its obligations to respect the basic human rights of Saharawis, and should consider options for international administration of the natural resources and associated revenues of Western Sahara pending a political solution. He suggested further that the Special Committee send a delegation to Western Sahara to assess the situation, as part of a renewed effort to monitor the decolonisation process and implement the Organisation’s “sacred trust” to the Saharawi people. “It is clear that the only viable solution to the question of Western Sahara is to ensure that the Saharawi people have the opportunity to decide freely and democratically their future […] through the organisation of a free, fair and transparent referendum under the auspices of the United Nations,” he concluded.

KHADDAD EL MOUSSAOUI, Vice-President, Royal Advisory Council on Saharan Affairs (Morocco), presented an outline of the “Moroccan Initiative for negotiating an autonomy status of the Sahara region”, saying it “guarantees to the people of Western Sahara, their position and role, without any discrimination or exclusion, to freely play in organs and institutions that provide exclusive democratic management of the Western Sahara internal affairs, through autonomous legislative and executive powers, and resources financial control […]. Morocco also guarantees them active participation in the economic and socio-cultural areas within a sovereign Kingdom.”

He said the other parties to the dispute over Western Sahara had adopted a “radical attitude”, noting in particular a “narrow interpretation of the principle of self-determination”. In that respect, and in hopes of seeing the political process continue in peace, Morocco wished to see the other parties engaging in intense and substantial negotiations. Reaffirming Morocco’s attachment to the process of negotiations and its support for the efforts of the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy, he restated his country’s “determination to pursue its commitments aiming at achieving a political negotiated solution on the basis of the ‘Moroccan Autonomy Initiative.”

MOHAMED SOFIANE BERRAH (Algeria), began his presentation by underscoring the importance of reminding the Special Committee of its raison d’etre — monitoring the implementation of the Declaration and assisting Non-Self-Governing Territories as they pursued any of the three self-determination options (independence, free association and integration – OTR). Today, colonialism appeared to have lost its “character of despicability”, he said, recalling that United Nations resolutions condemned colonialism while the goal of the Special Committee was to eradicate it. Any socio-economic benefits that colonisation may have bought to the peoples of the Territories should not justify the fact of colonisation itself, he stressed.

On the question of Western Sahara, he said it was only fair that the Territory’s people enjoy international protection. That could be achieved by extending the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) to include human rights monitoring and reporting.

He went on to say that the process of negotiations over Western Sahara “cultivates hope for a peaceful solution”, emphasizing, however, that dialogue was not an end in itself and must lead to conclusions and results if peace was to be achieved in the region. In light of major ongoing challenges, Algeria would support the idea of a Third Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, in hopes that it would help bring about an end to decolonisation once and for all.

EMMA EDWARDS, Member, Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) recalled that the islanders had repeatedly expressed their firm view that “we are content with our current relationship with Britain”, noting that, for a variety of reasons, the options of full independence, free association or integration with an independent State were not suitable for the Territory. “We are happy with the status quo, and do not like being told by others what to do.” The Falkland Islands were currently not ready for independence, “but we do express our right of self-determination […] with almost all of the people of the Falkland Islands wishing to remain and enjoy our British Overseas Territory status.”

Outlining aspects of the “healthy democracy” enjoyed by the Territory, she said they included elections in November 2009, and a new Constitution, which had entered into force in January 2009, and enhanced local democracy, established a greater degree of internal self-government and provided mechanisms for transparency and accountability. While the Territory’s small economy “took a hit” during the financial crisis, it remained strong, she said, citing a number of programmes and initiatives in the areas of transport, telecommunications, energy production, health care and education which benefited the islanders.

MARIA FERNANDA CANAS (Argentina) said that, although her country had consistently supported the applicability of the self-determination principle to peoples under colonial rule, that was not the case in the “Question of the Malvinas Islands,” which affected the territorial integrity of Argentina. “This question refers to the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, and clearly differs from traditional colonial cases,” she emphasized.

Recalling that the United Nations had rejected the applicability of the self-determination principle to the Malvinas question, she said the UN classified it as a “special and particular” form of colonialism constituting a sovereignty dispute to be resolved by negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom, taking into account the interests of the islanders. “We have committed ourselves to taking into account their interests,” she said, adding that Argentina would do that by enshrining a commitment to their way of life and interests in the Constitution and calling on the United Kingdom to resume negotiations to solve the dispute. “The Argentine commitment to recover the Islands […] is not some sudden passion but a long-sustained national concern that stretches back more than 177 years,” she concluded.

CARLOS ARAGON DE LA SERNA (Spain) said: “I regret to inform the participants in this Seminar that […] we unfortunately cannot provide the Special Committee with any good news regarding the decolonisation of Gibraltar.” Arguing that Gibraltar’s new Constitutional Order of 2006 did not entail any change in its international status, he noted that “colonialism by consent does not mean that the resulting political arrangements are any less colonial”, and that the new constitutional text did not affect the legal validity of the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht. “My Government is therefore opposed to any attempt to see Gibraltar removed from the UN list of territories that are undergoing the decolonisation process,” he said.

United Nations doctrine rightly led the Special Committee to differentiate between Non-Self-Governing Territories subject to a decolonisation process where there was a dispute over sovereignty, such as Gibraltar, and those where there was no such dispute. Further, he said, “the mandate of the United Nations […] invites the United Kingdom and Spain to find a negotiated solution taking into account the interests of the population of the colony.” Despite Spain’s willingness, he said, “the United Kingdom has consistently ignored our appeals to resume conversations to find a definitive solution to the question of Gibraltar”.

JOSEPH BOSSANO, the Opposition Leader of Gibraltar, said the territorial government did not attend the Special Committee’s Seminars because it considered itself already decolonised. One of the Seminar’s main aims was to hear the views of non-self-governing peoples, he said, calling for more time to be given to their representatives rather than Member States. The Seminar was an opportunity for the Special Committee to reach out to those people without the filter of the administering Power. Discussing the historical basis of the dispute over Gibraltar, he said the Treaty of Utrecht had been signed in 1713, and he suggested it was time that Member States considered new ideas and solutions that would reflect the current world.

Role of United Nations System

SALA GEORGINA BONIN, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Multi-Country Office, Samoa, began by outlining the agency’s work in supporting the self-determination process in Tokelau, part of its broader work supporting Tokelau under a special relations agreement signed with New Zealand in the 1980s. She said the main areas of UNDP’s support for Tokelau’s self-determination included governance-reform initiatives to help the Territory’s home-grown government structure and direct assistance for the first and second referendums on the Treaty of Free Association with New Zealand in 2006 and 2007.

Following the referendums, New Zealand and Tokelau had agreed to a “pause” on that front, opting to focus on other development priorities and the Millennium Development Goals, she said, noting that UNDP continued to provide assistance under its Country Programme Action Plan on issues relating to equitable economic growth and poverty reduction, good governance and human rights, crisis prevention and recovery, sustainability, environmental management and the cross-cutting issue of gender equality.

CARLYLE CORBIN, Independent Expert, presented a paper entitled “The Role of the United Nations System in Providing Developmental Assistance to the Non self-governing territories.” He focuses attention on the importance of participation by Non-Self-Governing Territories in the work of the United Nations system, noting that it was critical in developing their readiness to assume the powers of self-government. That was especially true because many of the Territories’ economies required a heightened measure of human resource development in relation to their engagement in the globalised economy. He emphasised that the UN mandate for assistance to the territories from the UN system dated back to 1946 with resolutions of the UN General Assembly routinely adopted but unevenly implemented.

He noted that virtually all Non-Self-Governing Territories, in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, were associate members of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), respectively. He also pointed out that by virtue of this associate membership these territories were also provided observer status in major United Nations conferences and special sessions in the social and economic sphere.

He pointed out that many United Nations programmes, funds and specialized agencies allowed some form of participation through membersdhip, associate membership or observer status, while other UN bodies did not, noting that participation by the Non-Self-Governing Territories “has not fully become standard United Nations practice”. In particular, he said the Economic and Social Council should revisit the resolution it had earlier declined to approve, which called for the Territories to participate directly in its functional commissions in areas such as statistical analysis, sustainable development and other socio-economic related areas relating to their ongoing development processes. “The absence of a role […] in the work of the Commission on Sustainable Development is especially glaring, given that the issues of the vulnerabilities of small island States are considered in that body,” he concluded.

DAY 3

The final day of the seminar focused on the way forward. DONATUS ST. AIMEE ( Saint Lucia), Chairman of the Special Committee, noted the importance of nation-building as an essential prerequisite to successful self-determination. He said economic and social development, as well as education about self-determination processes and options, should be in place before any decision on self-determination was taken. “If this process hasn’t taken place before you exercise your right to self-determination, then you may spend an enormous amount of resources undertaking that task afterwards,” he cautioned. “That is why sometimes it may not be a bad idea to have a period of reflection to see if all the people who live in the Territory are all on the same track and committed to that process.”

JOSEPH BOSSANO, Opposition Leader of Gibraltar, said the real problem with the Territories remaining on the United Nations list was that, for many of them, neither full independence nor full integration with another State was a feasible option, which left only free association with another State as the only available one. Given the many different forms that free association could take, it was worth asking how to define a form of free association that could demonstrate a Territory’s readiness for a full measure of self-government. Citing the question of Gibraltar as an example, he concluded by arguing that, when it comes to Territories over which there was a sovereignty dispute, it was necessary to avoid “the controversial discussion about which link (with another State) and focus on the nature of the link, and whether the Territory is ready for such a link.”

The Chairman noted that a major problem was a lack of indicators and benchmarks to show what stage of the decolonisation process a Territory had reached. The Special Committee could begin thinking about that, he said. While holding a referendum was one physical manifestation of progress towards decolonisation, and the growth of gross domestic product (GDP) may be one manifestation of economic development, there may be a need for a more formal structure to allow the Special Committee to measure more accurately the readiness of a particular Territory and its people as they moved along the path to self-determination, he said.

HERY SARIPUDIN ( Indonesia) said that, since 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories were yet to be de-listed, his country fully supported the idea of a Third International Decade. It should be a “decade of more work” rather than a “decade of continuing talk”, he said, adding that there was a need to consider establishing a comprehensive, pragmatic and realistic process for assessing self-determination processes and options, taking into account the specific circumstances of each Territory.

The Chairman noted that a great deal of discussion on decolonisation focused on the political role of the administering Power which, while obviously important, should not be seen as the only facet of the process. Encouraging private sector actors in a Territory to be good corporate citizens was also vital. “If they don’t reflect a sense of goodwill, it makes the job of the administering Power and the local authorities much more difficult,” he said. “If we can encourage the private sector to become good corporate citizens, and if the population can see that resources are being used for their benefit, then this contributes to a sense of trust and nation-building.”

CARLYLE CORBIN, Independent expert, said a number of good ideas had emerged from the present Seminar and previous ones, so there was no shortage of ideas on the way forward. A Third Decade may be appropriate, but it should be a decade of “implementation” wherein the pursuit of decolonisation was “renewed” rather than “reaffirmed” as usual.

He made reference to the points raised by the Chairman on the need for indicators and benchmarks to assess the level of self-government, and recalled that the indicators had been set forth in the Annex to Resolution 1541 (XV) which outlines the minimum standards for self-government. In this connection, he advised that these standards provided for the necessary parameters under which a number of political models could be judged with the critical stipulation that they meet the objective of full political equality. He made reference to models such as Greenland and Faroe Islands in autonomous arrangements relationship with Denmark; the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau in free association with the US; the Cook Islands and Niue in association with New Zealand; and the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba as autonomous countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

He emphasized that these models should be studied by the Special Committee so as to better inform the people of the territories of how the legitimate options available to them actually operate in practice. He also recalled that the Special Committee had been presented with a self-governance index as early as the 2000 seminar in Majuro, and that the case-by-case review of each territory which was to have been undertaken pursuant to UN resolutions had not been operationalised. Under these conditions, it would be difficult to assess whether any of the remaining territories met the international standards of full self-government, and whether changes in some autonomous arrangements rendered the models less than fully self-governing.

EDWARD WOLFERS, an Expert, said indicators could help place Territories on a scale of progress towards self-determination, rather than simply declaring a particular process had “failed”. For example, Tokelau had not failed in the self-determination process; rather, the process had succeeded because the people had expressed their views in two referenda. Furthermore, having benchmarks in place could help to measure not only political developments towards self-determination but also the socio-economic developments that could make a Territory stronger and better equipped for self-determination, he said.

DAVID WINDSOR ( Australia) noted his country’s support for the Nouméa Accord and the role that New Caledonia had begun to play in the Pacific Islands Forum. Looking to the future more broadly, he said education and environmental issues would be critical for Non-Self-Governing Territories, particularly in the Pacific, adding that Australia provided scholarships for students from the Pacific, including those from Tokelau and New Caledonia, to study in fields including environmental and ecological studies.

STEVE MCFIELD, from the Cayman Islands, agreed with previous speakers that a nation-building process must take place for the exercise of self-determination to be successful. Outlining the history of the Cayman Islands under various forms and degrees of colonial administration, he said that, due to careful and forceful negotiation among the people and with the administering Power, the Territory now had “one of the best arrangements” in the world.

HOPE A. CRISTOBEL of the Guahan and Chamorro Studies Association said it was a shame that after two international decades, Guam was now feeling the effects of “hyper-militarisation” by its administering Power. Rather than merely looking at Territories that had made progress towards decolonisation, it was important to ask why some had actually regressed in recent years. She also noted that information provided to and by the Special Committee should be gleaned from sources other than the media, which may be biased towards administering Powers.

FADEL KAMAL of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Polisario Front) said that in order to move forward one must reflect on the Special Committee’s history and mandate, of which there was much to be proud. The voice of those that the Special Committee had been established to help must always be heard, including through self-determination referenda, when the people were ready and willing, and when the possible outcomes would be sustainable. He said he agreed with the idea of a third international decade and supported the role of the Seminars. Hopefully, there would be more opportunities in the future for representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories to share their views, answer questions and engage in discussion.

ROBERT G. AISI ( Papua New Guinea) said there were lessons to be learned from the Special Committee’s past successes and failures, and there was also a case for taking some time to assess the Second Decade before launching straight into a third. He also agreed that the Special Committee could use the Seminars in a more strategic way to listen more closely to experts and representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories, who may not have the opportunity to provide information at other times.

TOGIOLA TALALELEI A. TULAFONO, Governor of American Samoa, suggested that the Special Committee focus more closely on whether the decolonisation process was helping the socio-economic status of the Territories’ respective peoples, rather than simply focusing on political and administrative aspects. Many smaller independent States were continually in need of support and “without their own resources, they are literally economically colonized in many ways”, he noted, suggesting that a way forward for the Special Committee could be to make the economic situation just as important as the political one.

GEORGINA BONIN of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) said there seemed to be no consistent representation from United Nations agencies at the regional Seminars, pointing out that some agencies may have experiences and expertise that could be useful to share at future Seminars.

Presentation of the Draft Report

The Chairman noted that all participants had made valuable contributions, with many of their suggestions laying down challenges of thinking and method for the Special Committee. “You have thrown down the challenges and we have given an undertaking to respond,” he added. The Seminar’s conclusions and recommendations would be refined in light of the morning discussions for consideration at the Special Committee’s next substantive session in New York in June, he said.

Closing Session

PHILIPPE GOMES, President of the Government of New Caledonia, said the Territory had been honoured to host the Seminar, and expressed hope that its current institutional transformation gave an interesting example for participants from other Territories. He expressed admiration for the very high level of debate, which had been “animated and passionate, enriching and productive”, and for the participants who had shared and exchanged information, principles and inspiration.

Even though decolonisation for each Territory was pursued on a case-by-case basis, he said, the experience of others was always enriching, “feeding our thoughts and allowing us to think about other methods than we may originally envisage”. The Seminar had served as a useful conduit for information on the populations of Non-Self-Governing Territories, he said, noting that that was one of the Special Committee’s main aspirations. It was also a reminder that the building of nations was needed before self-determination could be successful. That was how New Caledonia had approached the issue — by becoming one people with their own destiny in their own hands, he said.

Chairman DONATUS ST. AIMEE ( Saint Lucia), in his closing statement, thanked the Government, administering Power, and people of New Caledonia for their hospitality, generosity and warm welcome. He praised the representation and input from a wide range of stakeholders within the Territory. “This makes me very positive about New Caledonia’s future,” he added.

He also praised participants in the Seminar for the constructive manner in which discussions had taken place, and for the wealth of ideas and insights that would be taken up in the Seminar’s conclusions and recommendations. He particularly thanked representatives of the media, saying their work was a key vehicle through which the Seminar’s message would be disseminated, particularly to the people of New Caledonia. “You have a responsibility to carry that message and help the decision-making process by letting the people know that their fate is in their own hands,” he said.

Noting that positive contribution by the UNDP representative, he expressed hope that more United Nations agencies, particularly those involved in such areas as food, agriculture, fisheries and the environment, would “come to the table” to share their experience and expertise with Non-Self-Governing Territories. If positive and constructive discussions continued among Non-Self-Governing Territories, administering Powers, Member States, non-governmental organisations and experts, each Territory would make the right decision about its future when the time came, he said.

The Seminar closed with the adoption of a resolution, by acclamation, expressing the Special Committee’s appreciation to the government and people of New Caledonia and expressing thanks to the people of New Caledonia for their generosity in hosting a successful Seminar.