CALL FOR PAPERS FOR UPCOMING BOOK
HOUSE OF NEHESI PUBLISHERS
P.O. Box 460 • Philipsburg, St. Martin • Caribbean
Nehesi@sintmaarten.net •
Offshoreediting@hotmail.com
http://www.houseofnehesipublish.com/
Submission Deadline: October 1, 2010
Edited by: Lasana M. Sekou
Inviting articles/essays/speeches/authors for a new book
Book title: The Remaining Colonies in the Caribbean Region (Working Title)
Submission deadline: 1 October 2010
Estimated publication date: December 2010
Theme of the Book: The State of the Independence Movement in the Remaining Colonies in the
Caribbean region. The position paper should include a brief background of the history of
independence-related ideas and activities in the specific territory/territories, with a focus on
discussing approaches, challenges, comparisons, stages of progress.
Copyright: Authors will retain copyright to their paper upon publication, and receive 10 complimentary copies of the book.
Papers/Essays/Articles: The paper must be unpublished and must not be submitted for publication elsewhere. Submissions should be a minimum of 10 pages and should not exceed 16 pages, letter size (8.5 x 11); typed double-spaced; 12 pt., in a common font such as Times New Roman or similar. Your autobiographical statement should be no more than 160 words. House of Nehesi Publishers (HNP) reserves the right to edit all papers, which will not be printed without the express approval of the author(s).
Submissions: Manuscripts on the above topic should be submitted in Word format by email to:
offshoreediting@hotmail.com or nehesi@mac.com by 1 October 2010.
All submissions must be
in English. (Submissions in Kwéyòl, Papiamentu, Spanish, Dutch or French must be accompanied by the English translation from the author in order for both the original language of the writer and the English translation to be printed in the book). Reference material/works referred to should be listed in a standard bibliographical format at the end of the paper. To avoid copyrights permission delays (and to encourage originality of your paper) extensive quotes from other published/unpublished sources are not encouraged.
21 July 2010
14 July 2010
Papiamentu Flourishes as a Caribbean Language
Bloglingua
by Caroline Mikolajczyk
In an age in which we lose an average of 10 languages forever each year, it’s heartening to see that at least one language is beating the odds. Although Papiamentu, a Creole language spoken in Curacao, Bonaire and
The Times notes that Dutch continues to be the language that
Papiamentu is interesting because even though
In the New York Times article, linguist Bart Jacobs explains why Papiamentu has a better chance of survival than most Creoles:
While English and French Creoles get more attention, the extension of Papiamentu into different domains like writing, education and policy is incredibly high. This bodes very well for the language’s chances to survive, and possibly even thrive well into the future.
What makes Papiamentu different from other, less healthy Creole languages? According to the New York Times, part of the difference lies in the fact that Dutch has fewer speakers than other colonial languages like English and Spanish. So, while people on the islands tend to learn Dutch to seek jobs in the
In the New York Times, Helmin Wiels, party leader for Pueblo Soberano, which favors breaking off Curacao’s official relationship with the
The preservation of Papiamentu would allow us to absorb the influences of our South American brothers, he said, while keeping alive that which makes us unique.
Editor’s Note: The characterisation that Pueblo Soberano favours “breaking off Curacao’s official relationship with the Netherlands Curacao the political status would naturally evolve into a modern bilateral relationship between two sovereign states based on political equality recognising the shared history, language, culture and other commonalities. Such relations would probably be strengthened, rather than broken off.
.
12 July 2010
The Question of Papua
Jakarta Post
by
Neles Tebay
Coordinator of the Papua Peace Network in Abepura, Papua
Last Friday indigenous Papuans — through the provincial legislative council — symbolically handed back the 2001 Law on Special Autonomy to the Indonesian government. The act should neither be dismissed as irrational, nor should it lead to the conclusion that referendum and independence are the ultimate goals of those dissatisfied with the current situation in Papua. It is rather a cry to be taken seriously: Papuans are waiting for dialogue to negotiate a new solution to the their governance. The 2001 law was offered by the central government as the best and most realistic solution to the Papua conflict.
Internationally, it was recognized as a win-win solution, preserving on the one hand Indonesia’s territorial integrity while advancing and safeguarding the needs of Papuans on the other.
The policy of a semiautonomous Papua was at the time strongly supported by the European Union, the United States and the state members of the Pacific Islands Forum.
But although the special autonomy policy was hailed by many as the only viable solution, it was not the result of genuine dialogue between the Indonesian government and Papuans; rather, it was unilaterally decided by the Peoples’ Assembly (MPR) in 1999. The lack of a joint decision-making process between the government and Papuans thus makes it a solution that is not negotiated but imposed. This is why neither the government nor Papuans felt strongly that they owned this policy.
The decision to “return the law” was taken after a two-day evaluation of the legislation last week in Jayapura, facilitated by the Papuan Peoples’ Assembly (MRP). Papuans from all tribes and political factions participated. According to the 2001 law, an evaluation of the law’s efficacy should be conducted every year. In reality such an evaluation never took place until Papuans took the initiative last week.
The action led the Papuans to the understanding that the government does not show moral commitment and political will to implement the autonomy law.
This has been demonstrated through the government’s controversial policies, which were felt by many to be deliberately violating Papua’s autonomy law.
Those policies include the establishment of three new provinces in Papua in 2001, changing the autonomy law in 2008 to provide a legal foundation for the establishment of West Papua Province, and rejecting the Papuans’ proposal of using the Morning Star flag as a Papuan cultural symbol.
Furthermore, the joint application by the government of the law on Papua’s autonomy and the 2004 Law on Regional Government has brought about confusion among the local government. The Papuans feel their needs and fundamental rights remain largely unaddressed.
The government in the past nine years did not produce the necessary governmental regulations for the special implementing regulations, establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, work out an adequate policy framework to protect and empower the indigenous Papuans, and address the human rights violations since 1963 until today. Despite a central government pouring billions of rupiah into Papua, the majority of Papuans still live under the poverty line. Without government control of migration from other provinces to Papua, Papuans are fast becoming a minority in their own land, economically marginalized and disfavored.
In the light of the above, the act of handing back the special autonomy may be taken as a sign of outrage and anger. More importantly, it is an expression of fear, of frustration and of despair. It is a cry to be taken seriously. Papuans do not feel protected and empowered by the government. They are seriously worried about their survival today and about their future in the country. What the Papuans want first and foremost is to be taken seriously and to have their grievances acknowledged.
They wish for a solution they can be a part of and can participate in. They want a solution that they can also own. They cannot accept any solution they feel is imposed by the government.
In their eyes, there is only one way to produce a negotiated solution, which is genuinely accepted by both the Indonesian government and the Papuans themselves. This is through meaningful dialogue between the central government and the Papuans.
In the wake of the events of last week, the time has come for the government of Indonesia and people of Papua to engage in a such a peaceful exchange.
by
Neles Tebay
Coordinator of the Papua Peace Network in Abepura, Papua
Last Friday indigenous Papuans — through the provincial legislative council — symbolically handed back the 2001 Law on Special Autonomy to the Indonesian government. The act should neither be dismissed as irrational, nor should it lead to the conclusion that referendum and independence are the ultimate goals of those dissatisfied with the current situation in Papua. It is rather a cry to be taken seriously: Papuans are waiting for dialogue to negotiate a new solution to the their governance. The 2001 law was offered by the central government as the best and most realistic solution to the Papua conflict.
Internationally, it was recognized as a win-win solution, preserving on the one hand Indonesia’s territorial integrity while advancing and safeguarding the needs of Papuans on the other.
The policy of a semiautonomous Papua was at the time strongly supported by the European Union, the United States and the state members of the Pacific Islands Forum.
But although the special autonomy policy was hailed by many as the only viable solution, it was not the result of genuine dialogue between the Indonesian government and Papuans; rather, it was unilaterally decided by the Peoples’ Assembly (MPR) in 1999. The lack of a joint decision-making process between the government and Papuans thus makes it a solution that is not negotiated but imposed. This is why neither the government nor Papuans felt strongly that they owned this policy.
The decision to “return the law” was taken after a two-day evaluation of the legislation last week in Jayapura, facilitated by the Papuan Peoples’ Assembly (MRP). Papuans from all tribes and political factions participated. According to the 2001 law, an evaluation of the law’s efficacy should be conducted every year. In reality such an evaluation never took place until Papuans took the initiative last week.
The action led the Papuans to the understanding that the government does not show moral commitment and political will to implement the autonomy law.
This has been demonstrated through the government’s controversial policies, which were felt by many to be deliberately violating Papua’s autonomy law.
Those policies include the establishment of three new provinces in Papua in 2001, changing the autonomy law in 2008 to provide a legal foundation for the establishment of West Papua Province, and rejecting the Papuans’ proposal of using the Morning Star flag as a Papuan cultural symbol.
Furthermore, the joint application by the government of the law on Papua’s autonomy and the 2004 Law on Regional Government has brought about confusion among the local government. The Papuans feel their needs and fundamental rights remain largely unaddressed.
The government in the past nine years did not produce the necessary governmental regulations for the special implementing regulations, establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, work out an adequate policy framework to protect and empower the indigenous Papuans, and address the human rights violations since 1963 until today. Despite a central government pouring billions of rupiah into Papua, the majority of Papuans still live under the poverty line. Without government control of migration from other provinces to Papua, Papuans are fast becoming a minority in their own land, economically marginalized and disfavored.
In the light of the above, the act of handing back the special autonomy may be taken as a sign of outrage and anger. More importantly, it is an expression of fear, of frustration and of despair. It is a cry to be taken seriously. Papuans do not feel protected and empowered by the government. They are seriously worried about their survival today and about their future in the country. What the Papuans want first and foremost is to be taken seriously and to have their grievances acknowledged.
They wish for a solution they can be a part of and can participate in. They want a solution that they can also own. They cannot accept any solution they feel is imposed by the government.
In their eyes, there is only one way to produce a negotiated solution, which is genuinely accepted by both the Indonesian government and the Papuans themselves. This is through meaningful dialogue between the central government and the Papuans.
In the wake of the events of last week, the time has come for the government of Indonesia and people of Papua to engage in a such a peaceful exchange.
08 July 2010
Decisión del Comité Especial de ONU relativa a Puerto Rico
Naciones Unidas
El Comité Especial,
Teniendo presente la Declaración sobre la concesión de la independencia a los países y pueblos coloniales, contenida en la resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General, de 14 de diciembre de 1960, así como las resoluciones y decisiones del Comité Especial relativas a Puerto Rico,
Considerando que la Asamblea General, en su resolución 43/47, de 22 de noviembre de 1988, declaró el período 1990-2000 Decenio Internacional para la Eliminación del Colonialismo, y que en virtud de la resolución 55/146, de 8 de diciembre de 2000, declaró el período 2001-2010 Segundo Decenio Internacional para la Eliminación del Colonialismo,
Teniendo presentes las veintiocho resoluciones y decisiones aprobadas por el Comité Especial sobre la cuestión de Puerto Rico, contenidas en los informes del Comité Especial a la Asamblea General, en particular aquellas aprobadas en los últimos años sin votación,
Recordando que el 25 de julio de 2010 se cumplen ciento doce años de la intervención de los Estados Unidos de América en Puerto Rico,
Observando con preocupación que, a pesar de las diversas iniciativas emprendidas en años recientes por los representantes políticos de Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos, no se ha logrado hasta el momento poner en marcha un proceso de descolonización para Puerto Rico que cumpla con la resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General y las resoluciones y decisiones del Comité Especial relativas a Puerto Rico,
Enfatizando la urgencia de que los Estados Unidos propicien las condiciones necesarias para la plena aplicación de la resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General y las resoluciones y decisiones del Comité Especial relativas a Puerto Rico,
Tomando nota de que el Grupo Interagencial de Trabajo sobre el Estatus de Puerto Rico designado por el Presidente de los Estados Unidos, el cual presentó su segundo informe en diciembre de 2007, reafirmó que Puerto Rico es un territorio sujeto a la autoridad congresional de los Estados Unidos, y de que en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos se han presentado posteriormente iniciativas con relación al estatus de Puerto Rico,
Tomando nota también de la “Proclama de Panamá”, adoptada en el Congreso Latinoamericano y Caribeño por la Independencia de Puerto Rico, que con la presencia de treinta y tres partidos políticos de veintidós países de la región sesionó del 17 al 19 de noviembre de 2006, en Panamá, cuyas conclusiones fueron reiteradas en Ciudad de México el 29 de marzo de 2008 en la reunión del Comité Permanente de Trabajo por la Independencia de Puerto Rico; y de la declaración del Comité de América Latina y el Caribe de la Internacional Socialista, adoptada en su reunión en Buenos Aires en abril de 2010 a favor de la revisión del caso de Puerto Rico por la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas,
Tomando nota además del debate que existe en Puerto Rico sobre la búsqueda de un procedimiento que permita iniciar el proceso de descolonización de Puerto Rico, y consciente del principio de que toda iniciativa para la solución del estatus político de Puerto Rico debe tomarla originalmente el pueblo de Puerto Rico,
Consciente de que la isla de Vieques, Puerto Rico, fue utilizada durante más de sesenta años por la infantería de marina de los Estados Unidos para llevar a cabo maniobras militares, con las correspondientes consecuencias negativas para la salud de la población, el medio ambiente y el desarrollo económico y social de ese municipio puertorriqueño,
Tomando nota del consenso que existe en el pueblo y Gobierno de Puerto Rico sobre la necesidad de que se produzca la limpieza, descontaminación y devolución al pueblo de Puerto Rico de todas las tierras anteriormente utilizadas para maniobras e instalaciones y su utilización para el desarrollo social y económico de Puerto Rico,
Tomando nota también de las denuncias hechas por los habitantes de Vieques sobre la continuación de la detonación de bombas y quema abierta como método de limpieza, agravando así los problemas de salud y contaminación ya existentes y poniendo en riesgo la vida de civiles,
Tomando nota además del consenso que existe en el pueblo de Puerto Rico a favor de que se ponga en libertad a los presos políticos puertorriqueños, algunos de los cuales cumplen condenas en prisiones de los Estados Unidos por más de veintinueve años por causas relacionadas con la lucha por la independencia de Puerto Rico,
Tomando nota de la preocupación existente en el pueblo de Puerto Rico con relación a las acciones violentas, incluidas la represión e intimidación, contra independentistas puertorriqueños, incluyendo las que se han conocido recientemente a partir de documentos desclasificados por agencias federales de los Estados Unidos,
Tomando nota también de que en el Documento Final de la Decimoquinta Conferencia Cumbre del Movimiento de Países No Alineados, celebrada en Sharm El Sheikh (Egipto) del 11 al 16 de julio de 2009, y en otras reuniones del movimiento, se reafirma el derecho del pueblo de Puerto Rico a la libre determinación e independencia, de conformidad con la resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General; se exhorta al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos a asumir su responsabilidad de acelerar un proceso que permita que el pueblo de Puerto Rico ejerza plenamente su derecho inalienable a la libre determinación y la independencia; se insta al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos a devolver el territorio y las instalaciones ocupados en la isla de Vieques y en la Estación Naval de Roosevelt Roads al pueblo puertorriqueño, que constituye una nación latinoamericana y caribeña; y se insta a la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas a examinar activamente la cuestión de Puerto Rico en todos sus aspectos,
Habiendo oído declaraciones y testimonios representativos de diversas tendencias del pueblo puertorriqueño y sus instituciones sociales,
Habiendo examinado el informe del Relator del Comité Especial sobre la aplicación de las resoluciones relativas a Puerto Rico ,
1. Reafirma el derecho inalienable del pueblo puertorriqueño a la libre determinación e independencia, de conformidad con la resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General, y la aplicabilidad de los principios fundamentales de dicha resolución a la cuestión de Puerto Rico;
2. Reitera que el pueblo puertorriqueño constituye una nación latinoamericana y caribeña que tiene su propia e inconfundible identidad nacional;
3. Llama al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América a asumir su responsabilidad de propiciar un proceso que permita que el pueblo de Puerto Rico ejerza plenamente su derecho inalienable a la libre determinación y la independencia, de conformidad y en pleno cumplimiento con la resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General y las resoluciones y decisiones del Comité Especial relativas a Puerto Rico;
4. Toma nota del amplio apoyo de personalidades, Gobiernos y fuerzas políticas de América Latina y el Caribe a la independencia de Puerto Rico;
5. Toma nota nuevamente del debate que existe en Puerto Rico sobre la implementación de un mecanismo que pueda asegurar la plena participación de todos los sectores de opinión puertorriqueños, entre ellos una Asamblea Constitucional de Status sobre las bases de las alternativas descolonizadoras reconocidas por el derecho internacional, consciente del principio de que toda iniciativa para la solución del estatus político de Puerto Rico debe tomarla originalmente el pueblo de Puerto Rico;
6. Expresa profunda preocupación en relación con las acciones llevadas a cabo contra luchadores independentistas, y alienta a que se lleven a cabo investigaciones sobre esas acciones, con el rigor necesario y la cooperación de las autoridades pertinentes;
7. Solicita a la Asamblea General que examine de manera amplia y en todos los aspectos la cuestión de Puerto Rico;
8. Insta al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, en consonancia con la necesidad de garantizar al pueblo puertorriqueño su legítimo derecho para la libre determinación y la protección de sus derechos humanos, a que termine la devolución de toda la tierra antes ocupada y las instalaciones en Vieques y Ceiba al pueblo de Puerto Rico, atienda a los derechos humanos fundamentales, como el derecho a la salud y al desarrollo económico, y acelere la ejecución y asuma los costos del proceso de limpieza y descontaminación de las áreas de impacto anteriormente utilizadas en las maniobras militares mediante métodos que no continúen agravando las serias consecuencias de su actividad militar para la salud de los habitantes de la isla de Vieques y el medio ambiente;
9. Pide al Presidente de los Estados Unidos que ponga en libertad a Oscar López Rivera y Carlos Alberto Torres, quienes cumplen condenas por más de veintiocho años, y Avelino González Claudio, todos presos políticos puertorriqueños que cumplen condenas en prisiones de los Estados Unidos por causas relacionadas con la lucha por la independencia de Puerto Rico;
10. Toma nota con satisfacción del informe preparado por el Relator del Comité Especial1, en cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en su resolución de 9 de junio de 2008;
11. Solicita al Relator que informe al Comité Especial en el año 2010 sobre la aplicación de la presente resolución;
12. Decide mantener la cuestión de Puerto Rico bajo examen continuo.
_____________________________________________________________________________
(English Version)
Special Committee decision concerning Puerto Rico
The Special Committee,
Bearing in mind the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, as well as the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico,
Considering that the period 1990-2000 was proclaimed by the General Assembly, in its resolution 43/47 of 22 November 1988, as the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, and that by resolution 55/146 of 8 December 2000, the General Assembly declared the period 2001-2010 the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,
Bearing in mind the 28 resolutions and decisions adopted by the Special Committee on the question of Puerto Rico, contained in the reports of the Special Committee to the General Assembly, in particular those adopted without a vote in recent years,
Recalling that 25 July 2010 marks the one hundred and twelfth anniversary of the intervention in Puerto Rico by the United States of America,
Noting with concern that despite the diverse initiatives taken by the political representatives of Puerto Rico and the United States in recent years, the process of decolonization of Puerto Rico, in compliance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee on Puerto Rico, has not yet been set in motion,
Stressing the urgent need for the United States to lay the groundwork for the full implementation of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico,
Noting that the inter-agency Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status designated by the President of the United States, which submitted its second report in December 2007, reaffirmed that Puerto Rico is a territory subject to United States congressional authority and that initiatives concerning Puerto Rico’s status have been subsequently presented to the Congress of the United States,
Also noting the “Panama Proclamation”, adopted by the Latin American and Caribbean Congress for the Independence of Puerto Rico, which was held in Panama from 17 to 19 November 2006 and attended by 33 political parties from 22 countries of the region, the conclusions of which were reaffirmed in Mexico City on 29 March 2008 at the meeting of the Standing Committee for Puerto Rican Independence; and the declaration of the Socialist International Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean, adopted at its meeting in Buenos Aires in April 2010, supporting a review of the case of Puerto Rico by the United Nations General Assembly,
Further noting the debate in Puerto Rico on the search for a procedure that would make it possible to launch the process of decolonization of Puerto Rico, and aware of the principle that any initiative for the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico should originate from the people of Puerto Rico,
Aware that Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, was used for over 60 years by the United States Marines to carry out military exercises, with negative consequences for the health of the population, the environment and the economic and social development of that Puerto Rican municipality,
Noting the consensus existing among the people and the Government of Puerto Rico on the necessity of ensuring the clean-up, decontamination and return to the people of Puerto Rico of all the territory previously used for military exercises and installations, and of using them for the social and economic development of Puerto Rico,
Also noting the complaints made by the inhabitants of Vieques Island regarding the continued bombing and the use of open burning for clean-up, which exacerbate the existing health problems and pollution and endanger civilian lives,
Further noting the consensus among the people of Puerto Rico in favour of the release of the Puerto Rican political prisoners, some of whom have been serving sentences in United States prisons for more than 29 years for cases related to the struggle for Puerto Rico’s independence,
Noting the concern of the people of Puerto Rico regarding violent actions, including repression and intimidation, against Puerto Rican independence fighters, including those that have recently come to light through documents declassified by federal agencies of the United States,
Also noting that in the final document of the Fifteenth Summit of the Non Aligned Movement, held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, from 11 to 16 July 2009, and at other meetings of the Movement, the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence is reaffirmed on the basis of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV); the Government of the United States is urged to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people to fully exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence; the Government of the United States is urged to return the territory and occupied installations on Vieques Island and at the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station to the Puerto Rican people, who constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation; and the General Assembly is urged to actively consider the question of Puerto Rico in all its aspects,
Having heard statements and testimonies representative of various viewpoints among the people of Puerto Rico and their social institutions,
Having considered the report of the Rapporteur of the Special Committee on the implementation of the resolutions concerning Puerto Rico,
1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence in conformity with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the applicability of the fundamental principles of that resolution to the question of Puerto Rico;
2. Reiterates that the Puerto Rican people constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation that has its own unequivocal national identity;
3. Calls upon the Government of the United States of America to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people fully to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, in accordance and in full compliance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico;
4. Notes the broad support of eminent persons, governments and political forces in Latin America and the Caribbean for the independence of Puerto Rico;
5. Again notes the debate in Puerto Rico on the implementation of a mechanism that would ensure the full participation of representatives of all viewpoints prevailing in Puerto Rico, including a constitutional assembly on status with a basis in the decolonization alternatives recognized in international law, aware of the principle that any initiative for the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico should originate from the people of Puerto Rico;
6. Expresses serious concern regarding actions carried out against Puerto Rican independence fighters, and encourages the investigation of those actions with the necessary rigour and with the cooperation of the relevant authorities;
7. Requests the General Assembly to consider the question of Puerto Rico comprehensively in all its aspects;
8. Urges the Government of the United States, in line with the need to guarantee the Puerto Rican people their legitimate right to self-determination and the protection of their human rights, to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and in Ceiba to the people of Puerto Rico; respect fundamental human rights, such as the right to health and economic development; and expedite and cover the costs of the process of cleaning up and decontaminating the impact areas previously used in military exercises through means that do not continue to aggravate the serious consequences of its military activity for the health of the inhabitants of Vieques Island and the environment;
9. Requests the President of the United States of America to release Oscar López Rivera and Carlos Alberto Torres, who have been serving sentences in United States prisons for over 28 years, and Avelino González Claudio, all of whom are Puerto Rican political prisoners serving sentences in United States prisons for cases relating to the struggle for the independence of Puerto Rico;
10. Notes with satisfaction the report prepared by the Rapporteur of the Special Committee,1 in compliance with its resolution of 9 June 2008;
11. Requests the Rapporteur to report to the Special Committee in 2010 on the implementation of the present resolution;
12. Decides to keep the question of Puerto Rico under continuous review.
El Comité Especial,
Teniendo presente la Declaración sobre la concesión de la independencia a los países y pueblos coloniales, contenida en la resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General, de 14 de diciembre de 1960, así como las resoluciones y decisiones del Comité Especial relativas a Puerto Rico,
Considerando que la Asamblea General, en su resolución 43/47, de 22 de noviembre de 1988, declaró el período 1990-2000 Decenio Internacional para la Eliminación del Colonialismo, y que en virtud de la resolución 55/146, de 8 de diciembre de 2000, declaró el período 2001-2010 Segundo Decenio Internacional para la Eliminación del Colonialismo,
Teniendo presentes las veintiocho resoluciones y decisiones aprobadas por el Comité Especial sobre la cuestión de Puerto Rico, contenidas en los informes del Comité Especial a la Asamblea General, en particular aquellas aprobadas en los últimos años sin votación,
Recordando que el 25 de julio de 2010 se cumplen ciento doce años de la intervención de los Estados Unidos de América en Puerto Rico,
Observando con preocupación que, a pesar de las diversas iniciativas emprendidas en años recientes por los representantes políticos de Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos, no se ha logrado hasta el momento poner en marcha un proceso de descolonización para Puerto Rico que cumpla con la resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General y las resoluciones y decisiones del Comité Especial relativas a Puerto Rico,
Enfatizando la urgencia de que los Estados Unidos propicien las condiciones necesarias para la plena aplicación de la resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General y las resoluciones y decisiones del Comité Especial relativas a Puerto Rico,
Tomando nota de que el Grupo Interagencial de Trabajo sobre el Estatus de Puerto Rico designado por el Presidente de los Estados Unidos, el cual presentó su segundo informe en diciembre de 2007, reafirmó que Puerto Rico es un territorio sujeto a la autoridad congresional de los Estados Unidos, y de que en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos se han presentado posteriormente iniciativas con relación al estatus de Puerto Rico,
Tomando nota también de la “Proclama de Panamá”, adoptada en el Congreso Latinoamericano y Caribeño por la Independencia de Puerto Rico, que con la presencia de treinta y tres partidos políticos de veintidós países de la región sesionó del 17 al 19 de noviembre de 2006, en Panamá, cuyas conclusiones fueron reiteradas en Ciudad de México el 29 de marzo de 2008 en la reunión del Comité Permanente de Trabajo por la Independencia de Puerto Rico; y de la declaración del Comité de América Latina y el Caribe de la Internacional Socialista, adoptada en su reunión en Buenos Aires en abril de 2010 a favor de la revisión del caso de Puerto Rico por la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas,
Tomando nota además del debate que existe en Puerto Rico sobre la búsqueda de un procedimiento que permita iniciar el proceso de descolonización de Puerto Rico, y consciente del principio de que toda iniciativa para la solución del estatus político de Puerto Rico debe tomarla originalmente el pueblo de Puerto Rico,
Consciente de que la isla de Vieques, Puerto Rico, fue utilizada durante más de sesenta años por la infantería de marina de los Estados Unidos para llevar a cabo maniobras militares, con las correspondientes consecuencias negativas para la salud de la población, el medio ambiente y el desarrollo económico y social de ese municipio puertorriqueño,
Tomando nota del consenso que existe en el pueblo y Gobierno de Puerto Rico sobre la necesidad de que se produzca la limpieza, descontaminación y devolución al pueblo de Puerto Rico de todas las tierras anteriormente utilizadas para maniobras e instalaciones y su utilización para el desarrollo social y económico de Puerto Rico,
Tomando nota también de las denuncias hechas por los habitantes de Vieques sobre la continuación de la detonación de bombas y quema abierta como método de limpieza, agravando así los problemas de salud y contaminación ya existentes y poniendo en riesgo la vida de civiles,
Tomando nota además del consenso que existe en el pueblo de Puerto Rico a favor de que se ponga en libertad a los presos políticos puertorriqueños, algunos de los cuales cumplen condenas en prisiones de los Estados Unidos por más de veintinueve años por causas relacionadas con la lucha por la independencia de Puerto Rico,
Tomando nota de la preocupación existente en el pueblo de Puerto Rico con relación a las acciones violentas, incluidas la represión e intimidación, contra independentistas puertorriqueños, incluyendo las que se han conocido recientemente a partir de documentos desclasificados por agencias federales de los Estados Unidos,
Tomando nota también de que en el Documento Final de la Decimoquinta Conferencia Cumbre del Movimiento de Países No Alineados, celebrada en Sharm El Sheikh (Egipto) del 11 al 16 de julio de 2009, y en otras reuniones del movimiento, se reafirma el derecho del pueblo de Puerto Rico a la libre determinación e independencia, de conformidad con la resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General; se exhorta al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos a asumir su responsabilidad de acelerar un proceso que permita que el pueblo de Puerto Rico ejerza plenamente su derecho inalienable a la libre determinación y la independencia; se insta al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos a devolver el territorio y las instalaciones ocupados en la isla de Vieques y en la Estación Naval de Roosevelt Roads al pueblo puertorriqueño, que constituye una nación latinoamericana y caribeña; y se insta a la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas a examinar activamente la cuestión de Puerto Rico en todos sus aspectos,
Habiendo oído declaraciones y testimonios representativos de diversas tendencias del pueblo puertorriqueño y sus instituciones sociales,
Habiendo examinado el informe del Relator del Comité Especial sobre la aplicación de las resoluciones relativas a Puerto Rico ,
1. Reafirma el derecho inalienable del pueblo puertorriqueño a la libre determinación e independencia, de conformidad con la resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General, y la aplicabilidad de los principios fundamentales de dicha resolución a la cuestión de Puerto Rico;
2. Reitera que el pueblo puertorriqueño constituye una nación latinoamericana y caribeña que tiene su propia e inconfundible identidad nacional;
3. Llama al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América a asumir su responsabilidad de propiciar un proceso que permita que el pueblo de Puerto Rico ejerza plenamente su derecho inalienable a la libre determinación y la independencia, de conformidad y en pleno cumplimiento con la resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General y las resoluciones y decisiones del Comité Especial relativas a Puerto Rico;
4. Toma nota del amplio apoyo de personalidades, Gobiernos y fuerzas políticas de América Latina y el Caribe a la independencia de Puerto Rico;
5. Toma nota nuevamente del debate que existe en Puerto Rico sobre la implementación de un mecanismo que pueda asegurar la plena participación de todos los sectores de opinión puertorriqueños, entre ellos una Asamblea Constitucional de Status sobre las bases de las alternativas descolonizadoras reconocidas por el derecho internacional, consciente del principio de que toda iniciativa para la solución del estatus político de Puerto Rico debe tomarla originalmente el pueblo de Puerto Rico;
6. Expresa profunda preocupación en relación con las acciones llevadas a cabo contra luchadores independentistas, y alienta a que se lleven a cabo investigaciones sobre esas acciones, con el rigor necesario y la cooperación de las autoridades pertinentes;
7. Solicita a la Asamblea General que examine de manera amplia y en todos los aspectos la cuestión de Puerto Rico;
8. Insta al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, en consonancia con la necesidad de garantizar al pueblo puertorriqueño su legítimo derecho para la libre determinación y la protección de sus derechos humanos, a que termine la devolución de toda la tierra antes ocupada y las instalaciones en Vieques y Ceiba al pueblo de Puerto Rico, atienda a los derechos humanos fundamentales, como el derecho a la salud y al desarrollo económico, y acelere la ejecución y asuma los costos del proceso de limpieza y descontaminación de las áreas de impacto anteriormente utilizadas en las maniobras militares mediante métodos que no continúen agravando las serias consecuencias de su actividad militar para la salud de los habitantes de la isla de Vieques y el medio ambiente;
9. Pide al Presidente de los Estados Unidos que ponga en libertad a Oscar López Rivera y Carlos Alberto Torres, quienes cumplen condenas por más de veintiocho años, y Avelino González Claudio, todos presos políticos puertorriqueños que cumplen condenas en prisiones de los Estados Unidos por causas relacionadas con la lucha por la independencia de Puerto Rico;
10. Toma nota con satisfacción del informe preparado por el Relator del Comité Especial1, en cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en su resolución de 9 de junio de 2008;
11. Solicita al Relator que informe al Comité Especial en el año 2010 sobre la aplicación de la presente resolución;
12. Decide mantener la cuestión de Puerto Rico bajo examen continuo.
_____________________________________________________________________________
(English Version)
Special Committee decision concerning Puerto Rico
The Special Committee,
Bearing in mind the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, as well as the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico,
Considering that the period 1990-2000 was proclaimed by the General Assembly, in its resolution 43/47 of 22 November 1988, as the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, and that by resolution 55/146 of 8 December 2000, the General Assembly declared the period 2001-2010 the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,
Bearing in mind the 28 resolutions and decisions adopted by the Special Committee on the question of Puerto Rico, contained in the reports of the Special Committee to the General Assembly, in particular those adopted without a vote in recent years,
Recalling that 25 July 2010 marks the one hundred and twelfth anniversary of the intervention in Puerto Rico by the United States of America,
Noting with concern that despite the diverse initiatives taken by the political representatives of Puerto Rico and the United States in recent years, the process of decolonization of Puerto Rico, in compliance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee on Puerto Rico, has not yet been set in motion,
Stressing the urgent need for the United States to lay the groundwork for the full implementation of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico,
Noting that the inter-agency Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status designated by the President of the United States, which submitted its second report in December 2007, reaffirmed that Puerto Rico is a territory subject to United States congressional authority and that initiatives concerning Puerto Rico’s status have been subsequently presented to the Congress of the United States,
Also noting the “Panama Proclamation”, adopted by the Latin American and Caribbean Congress for the Independence of Puerto Rico, which was held in Panama from 17 to 19 November 2006 and attended by 33 political parties from 22 countries of the region, the conclusions of which were reaffirmed in Mexico City on 29 March 2008 at the meeting of the Standing Committee for Puerto Rican Independence; and the declaration of the Socialist International Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean, adopted at its meeting in Buenos Aires in April 2010, supporting a review of the case of Puerto Rico by the United Nations General Assembly,
Further noting the debate in Puerto Rico on the search for a procedure that would make it possible to launch the process of decolonization of Puerto Rico, and aware of the principle that any initiative for the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico should originate from the people of Puerto Rico,
Aware that Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, was used for over 60 years by the United States Marines to carry out military exercises, with negative consequences for the health of the population, the environment and the economic and social development of that Puerto Rican municipality,
Noting the consensus existing among the people and the Government of Puerto Rico on the necessity of ensuring the clean-up, decontamination and return to the people of Puerto Rico of all the territory previously used for military exercises and installations, and of using them for the social and economic development of Puerto Rico,
Also noting the complaints made by the inhabitants of Vieques Island regarding the continued bombing and the use of open burning for clean-up, which exacerbate the existing health problems and pollution and endanger civilian lives,
Further noting the consensus among the people of Puerto Rico in favour of the release of the Puerto Rican political prisoners, some of whom have been serving sentences in United States prisons for more than 29 years for cases related to the struggle for Puerto Rico’s independence,
Noting the concern of the people of Puerto Rico regarding violent actions, including repression and intimidation, against Puerto Rican independence fighters, including those that have recently come to light through documents declassified by federal agencies of the United States,
Also noting that in the final document of the Fifteenth Summit of the Non Aligned Movement, held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, from 11 to 16 July 2009, and at other meetings of the Movement, the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence is reaffirmed on the basis of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV); the Government of the United States is urged to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people to fully exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence; the Government of the United States is urged to return the territory and occupied installations on Vieques Island and at the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station to the Puerto Rican people, who constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation; and the General Assembly is urged to actively consider the question of Puerto Rico in all its aspects,
Having heard statements and testimonies representative of various viewpoints among the people of Puerto Rico and their social institutions,
Having considered the report of the Rapporteur of the Special Committee on the implementation of the resolutions concerning Puerto Rico,
1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence in conformity with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the applicability of the fundamental principles of that resolution to the question of Puerto Rico;
2. Reiterates that the Puerto Rican people constitute a Latin American and Caribbean nation that has its own unequivocal national identity;
3. Calls upon the Government of the United States of America to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that will allow the Puerto Rican people fully to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, in accordance and in full compliance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee concerning Puerto Rico;
4. Notes the broad support of eminent persons, governments and political forces in Latin America and the Caribbean for the independence of Puerto Rico;
5. Again notes the debate in Puerto Rico on the implementation of a mechanism that would ensure the full participation of representatives of all viewpoints prevailing in Puerto Rico, including a constitutional assembly on status with a basis in the decolonization alternatives recognized in international law, aware of the principle that any initiative for the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico should originate from the people of Puerto Rico;
6. Expresses serious concern regarding actions carried out against Puerto Rican independence fighters, and encourages the investigation of those actions with the necessary rigour and with the cooperation of the relevant authorities;
7. Requests the General Assembly to consider the question of Puerto Rico comprehensively in all its aspects;
8. Urges the Government of the United States, in line with the need to guarantee the Puerto Rican people their legitimate right to self-determination and the protection of their human rights, to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and in Ceiba to the people of Puerto Rico; respect fundamental human rights, such as the right to health and economic development; and expedite and cover the costs of the process of cleaning up and decontaminating the impact areas previously used in military exercises through means that do not continue to aggravate the serious consequences of its military activity for the health of the inhabitants of Vieques Island and the environment;
9. Requests the President of the United States of America to release Oscar López Rivera and Carlos Alberto Torres, who have been serving sentences in United States prisons for over 28 years, and Avelino González Claudio, all of whom are Puerto Rican political prisoners serving sentences in United States prisons for cases relating to the struggle for the independence of Puerto Rico;
10. Notes with satisfaction the report prepared by the Rapporteur of the Special Committee,1 in compliance with its resolution of 9 June 2008;
11. Requests the Rapporteur to report to the Special Committee in 2010 on the implementation of the present resolution;
12. Decides to keep the question of Puerto Rico under continuous review.
07 July 2010
Univ. of Puerto Rico Student Strike Victory Unleashes Brutal Civil Rights Backlash
Huffington Post
by Maritza Stanchich, Ph.D.
As so many Americans gear up for Fourth of July fireworks this weekend, the U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico roils from a brutal civil rights showdown unleashed by a far-right wing government, now seemingly hell bent on destroying the recent unprecedented victory of a two-month long student strike against privatization of higher education at the University of Puerto Rico.
The broader implications are crucial on numerous fronts, including the struggle to maintain broad access to public higher education and efforts to rein in runaway neoliberal policies that have wreaked havoc on the global economy, resulting in draconian austerity measures worldwide. For the violence and repression seen in Greece and at the G20 in Toronto appears to now be visiting this Caribbean island nation of about four million U.S. citizens, the homeland of more than an additional four million Puerto Ricans in the United States, the second largest U.S. Latino group.
While the economic crisis in Puerto Rico--the worst since the 1940s, if not the 1930s-has been deepening for years, and the current right wing government has aggressively implemented a hard-line, unpopular neoliberal agenda since its broad electoral victory last November, it appears as if the recent UPR student strike victory has touched off a firestorm, with a police attack on peaceful demonstrators at Puerto Rico's Capitol building on Wednesday injuring dozens, some seriously.
The UPR strike concluded June 21 after a tense, two-month shut down of 10 campuses in a system serving nearly 65,000 students at the end of the academic year, with an accord that by all accounts was an unprecedented strike victory, in historic, hemispheric terms. A widely-supported student movement remarkable for its coalition building across traditionally distinct and even contentious social and political sectors coalesced against threatened erosion of broad public access to the widely-regarded state university, as well as its increasing privatization.
With tensions high after police and riot squads had attacked and injured students, their parents and journalists on at least three occasions, an agreement finally reached through judicial mediation met with the students' basic demands, reinstating cancelled tuition waivers, temporarily forestalling a tuition hike or imposition of student fees, and protecting strike leaders from summary suspension reprisals. The accord, signed by a majority of the Board of Trustees, though those refusing included the university and board presidents, was hailed as an achievement in civil conflict resolution, especially in light of the history of previous UPR strikes that had ended in deadly violent repressions.
Immediately after however, the Puerto Rico state legislature, dominated by the extreme right of the local Pro-Statehood party, rapidly expanded the university Board of Trustees, with the governor approving four new appointees, and a new but divided board quickly imposed a $800 student fee starting in January, and made it permanent, reminiscent of the imposition of fees at University of California by then Gov. Ronald Reagan. The legislature also quickly dismantled a long-standing UPR tradition of student assemblies, replacing them with private electronic computer voting devoid of open debate. Other cuts were also implemented affecting professors and adjunct instructors, who now make up about 40 percent of the UPR faculty, following trends in the United States, where 60 percent of all professors occupy such increasingly precarious positions.
In a far worse economic straits than the states of California or Michigan, Puerto Rico is confronting its worst fiscal crisis in decades, and UPR the biggest fiscal crisis of its 100-year existence. As throughout much of the world facing related circumstances, virulent and organized opposition to drastic cuts principally directed at the working and deteriorating middle classes has mushroomed, especially since the current global crisis, in Alan Greenspan's own befuddled words, was caused by greed-induced corruption among the highest echelons of the world economy.
While the neoliberal agenda of Puerto Rico's current political leaders look back to the very doctrines now being challenged in the United States and throughout Latin America, the UPR student movement embodies the vanguard of the contemporary 21st Century, as reflected by their symbols and tactics, including the democratizing internet, egalitarian rainbow flags, sustainable organic farming, an effervescence of alternative arts, and new coalition building among center, right and left, in tandem with occupation practices inspired by international student movements as far as California, Spain, France and Greece.
Though a shocking collective trauma, the violent crackdown at the Capitol Wednesday was not entirely surprising given the current administration's assault on all fronts since coming into power, targeting progressive, cultural and social welfare institutions and agencies with crippling budget cuts, attempting to dissolve Puerto Rico's bar association, lifting environmental protections to whole swaths of protected lands, and passing a now notorious law, called Ley 7, that not only dismisses 20,000 public employees, but declares null and void all public sector union contracts for three years, with the only recourse to challenging the law being to petition the local Supreme Court, now stacked with new appointments in the administration's favor. The governor has also activated the National Guard, amidst criticism from groups such the Puerto Rico chapters of the ACLU and Amnesty International.
Common in Puerto Rico, however, though unusual at most U.S. state universities, is the way political parties assume control of UPR leadership by appointing a new president, also recently achieved. This is in part because the UPR is widely regarded as national patrimony, and is one of the few places left in the country where dissent may be cultivated.
As opposition to these policies expands, as seen in a massive national strike in October which drew a quarter of a million workers into the streets, so has the government's seeming intolerance to any opposition, as Gov. Luis Fortuño, Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz and UPR president José Ramón de la Torre commonly resort to Cold War era red-baiting with media campaigns labeling protestors as Socialists, Communists, and professional rabble rousers out to destabilize the country. The clamp down has so far gone as far as banning journalists from Senate chambers for four days last week during the country's budget sessions, prompting media organizations to petition in court to regain access.
"I don't think there is any doubt that the intention of this government is to set back civil rights," said Judith Berkan, a long-time civil rights attorney and a law professor at University of Puerto Rico and InterAmerican University in San Juan, adding that the administration has enacted a staggering number of measures to neutralize and debilitate all those perceived as a threat to a local oligarchy acting in concert with U.S. interests.
Attempts were made to reach Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico's non-voting representative in the U.S. Congress, and UPR President José Ramón de la Torre for comment, but they were not available at press time.
The irony that the Pro-U.S. Statehood party of Gov. Fortuño is now curtailing the most basic press and civil liberties is not lost on UPR student strike leaders who witnessed and were injured at Wednesday's melee, including those who belong to the pro-Statehood party themselves, and voted for the sitting governor.
"It pains me as a statehooder that this government has not learned the lessons of U.S. civil rights struggles of decades ago," said Aníbal Núñez, a student at the UPR law school and a member of the student negotiating committee.
Núñez acknowledged the participation of students affiliated with Socialist groups among strike leaders and the student negotiating committee, and said they overcame their differences via universal concerns for education as a social necessity, as they gained each others' respect while coalition building together, adding that if he could not overcome ideological differences enough to collaborate, he would still believe in their right to pluralistically exist.
The notion that accessible, quality higher education contributes to economic recovery runs counter to the widening U.S. trend of students graduating with crippling debt, as public education has for years now faced diminishing state support. A common argument used by the administration during the UPR strike was its affordable tuition, at less than $2,000 per year for undergraduates before the recently imposed fees. But while tuition is cheaper than probably any other state university in the United States, average income in Puerto Rico is also far lower than any other U.S. state, with about 48 percent of the population living in poverty as defined by U.S. federal standards, and the cost of living in San Juan at least, far higher than at oft compared institutions in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, or Oxford, Mississippi. This tradition of maintaining broad public access to a quality state institution of higher learning is a hard earned point of pride at UPR, compared to institutions that have recently reneged their public mission with sudden and steep fee/tuition increases, such as at University of California, where students also opposed, occupied and met with police repression, but could not stave off a 32% fee hike imposed in November.
As UPR administrators continue to grapple with what was a nearly $200 million budget shortfall for next year going into the strike, in search of additional or alternative money saving and raising sources, an emboldened student movement will also regroup and weigh all its options. Future conflicts may be averted by altering the very style of governance at UPR, a top-down and paternalistic holdover from the past, as this could go a long way toward making students, as well as professors and staff who also have large stakes at play, part of a give-and-take process.
For come what may in the global fiscal crisis in the coming decade, these students are the future of new Americas of increasingly porous borders and dramatic, rapid demographic, political, cultural, informational and economic shifts, as the old order, the vestiges of the Cold War in Puerto Rico and in South Florida for example, fade into the proverbial sunset.
"We may not hold the power but we have the will power," stated law student Núñez, "and given the choice, I prefer the latter."
UPR administrators and Statehood party leaders would do well to recognize and reach out to the productive potential of this new power, shift gears and learn to act on the principles.
by Maritza Stanchich, Ph.D.
As so many Americans gear up for Fourth of July fireworks this weekend, the U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico roils from a brutal civil rights showdown unleashed by a far-right wing government, now seemingly hell bent on destroying the recent unprecedented victory of a two-month long student strike against privatization of higher education at the University of Puerto Rico.
The broader implications are crucial on numerous fronts, including the struggle to maintain broad access to public higher education and efforts to rein in runaway neoliberal policies that have wreaked havoc on the global economy, resulting in draconian austerity measures worldwide. For the violence and repression seen in Greece and at the G20 in Toronto appears to now be visiting this Caribbean island nation of about four million U.S. citizens, the homeland of more than an additional four million Puerto Ricans in the United States, the second largest U.S. Latino group.
While the economic crisis in Puerto Rico--the worst since the 1940s, if not the 1930s-has been deepening for years, and the current right wing government has aggressively implemented a hard-line, unpopular neoliberal agenda since its broad electoral victory last November, it appears as if the recent UPR student strike victory has touched off a firestorm, with a police attack on peaceful demonstrators at Puerto Rico's Capitol building on Wednesday injuring dozens, some seriously.
The UPR strike concluded June 21 after a tense, two-month shut down of 10 campuses in a system serving nearly 65,000 students at the end of the academic year, with an accord that by all accounts was an unprecedented strike victory, in historic, hemispheric terms. A widely-supported student movement remarkable for its coalition building across traditionally distinct and even contentious social and political sectors coalesced against threatened erosion of broad public access to the widely-regarded state university, as well as its increasing privatization.
With tensions high after police and riot squads had attacked and injured students, their parents and journalists on at least three occasions, an agreement finally reached through judicial mediation met with the students' basic demands, reinstating cancelled tuition waivers, temporarily forestalling a tuition hike or imposition of student fees, and protecting strike leaders from summary suspension reprisals. The accord, signed by a majority of the Board of Trustees, though those refusing included the university and board presidents, was hailed as an achievement in civil conflict resolution, especially in light of the history of previous UPR strikes that had ended in deadly violent repressions.
Immediately after however, the Puerto Rico state legislature, dominated by the extreme right of the local Pro-Statehood party, rapidly expanded the university Board of Trustees, with the governor approving four new appointees, and a new but divided board quickly imposed a $800 student fee starting in January, and made it permanent, reminiscent of the imposition of fees at University of California by then Gov. Ronald Reagan. The legislature also quickly dismantled a long-standing UPR tradition of student assemblies, replacing them with private electronic computer voting devoid of open debate. Other cuts were also implemented affecting professors and adjunct instructors, who now make up about 40 percent of the UPR faculty, following trends in the United States, where 60 percent of all professors occupy such increasingly precarious positions.
In a far worse economic straits than the states of California or Michigan, Puerto Rico is confronting its worst fiscal crisis in decades, and UPR the biggest fiscal crisis of its 100-year existence. As throughout much of the world facing related circumstances, virulent and organized opposition to drastic cuts principally directed at the working and deteriorating middle classes has mushroomed, especially since the current global crisis, in Alan Greenspan's own befuddled words, was caused by greed-induced corruption among the highest echelons of the world economy.
While the neoliberal agenda of Puerto Rico's current political leaders look back to the very doctrines now being challenged in the United States and throughout Latin America, the UPR student movement embodies the vanguard of the contemporary 21st Century, as reflected by their symbols and tactics, including the democratizing internet, egalitarian rainbow flags, sustainable organic farming, an effervescence of alternative arts, and new coalition building among center, right and left, in tandem with occupation practices inspired by international student movements as far as California, Spain, France and Greece.
Though a shocking collective trauma, the violent crackdown at the Capitol Wednesday was not entirely surprising given the current administration's assault on all fronts since coming into power, targeting progressive, cultural and social welfare institutions and agencies with crippling budget cuts, attempting to dissolve Puerto Rico's bar association, lifting environmental protections to whole swaths of protected lands, and passing a now notorious law, called Ley 7, that not only dismisses 20,000 public employees, but declares null and void all public sector union contracts for three years, with the only recourse to challenging the law being to petition the local Supreme Court, now stacked with new appointments in the administration's favor. The governor has also activated the National Guard, amidst criticism from groups such the Puerto Rico chapters of the ACLU and Amnesty International.
Common in Puerto Rico, however, though unusual at most U.S. state universities, is the way political parties assume control of UPR leadership by appointing a new president, also recently achieved. This is in part because the UPR is widely regarded as national patrimony, and is one of the few places left in the country where dissent may be cultivated.
As opposition to these policies expands, as seen in a massive national strike in October which drew a quarter of a million workers into the streets, so has the government's seeming intolerance to any opposition, as Gov. Luis Fortuño, Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz and UPR president José Ramón de la Torre commonly resort to Cold War era red-baiting with media campaigns labeling protestors as Socialists, Communists, and professional rabble rousers out to destabilize the country. The clamp down has so far gone as far as banning journalists from Senate chambers for four days last week during the country's budget sessions, prompting media organizations to petition in court to regain access.
"I don't think there is any doubt that the intention of this government is to set back civil rights," said Judith Berkan, a long-time civil rights attorney and a law professor at University of Puerto Rico and InterAmerican University in San Juan, adding that the administration has enacted a staggering number of measures to neutralize and debilitate all those perceived as a threat to a local oligarchy acting in concert with U.S. interests.
Attempts were made to reach Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico's non-voting representative in the U.S. Congress, and UPR President José Ramón de la Torre for comment, but they were not available at press time.
The irony that the Pro-U.S. Statehood party of Gov. Fortuño is now curtailing the most basic press and civil liberties is not lost on UPR student strike leaders who witnessed and were injured at Wednesday's melee, including those who belong to the pro-Statehood party themselves, and voted for the sitting governor.
"It pains me as a statehooder that this government has not learned the lessons of U.S. civil rights struggles of decades ago," said Aníbal Núñez, a student at the UPR law school and a member of the student negotiating committee.
Núñez acknowledged the participation of students affiliated with Socialist groups among strike leaders and the student negotiating committee, and said they overcame their differences via universal concerns for education as a social necessity, as they gained each others' respect while coalition building together, adding that if he could not overcome ideological differences enough to collaborate, he would still believe in their right to pluralistically exist.
The notion that accessible, quality higher education contributes to economic recovery runs counter to the widening U.S. trend of students graduating with crippling debt, as public education has for years now faced diminishing state support. A common argument used by the administration during the UPR strike was its affordable tuition, at less than $2,000 per year for undergraduates before the recently imposed fees. But while tuition is cheaper than probably any other state university in the United States, average income in Puerto Rico is also far lower than any other U.S. state, with about 48 percent of the population living in poverty as defined by U.S. federal standards, and the cost of living in San Juan at least, far higher than at oft compared institutions in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, or Oxford, Mississippi. This tradition of maintaining broad public access to a quality state institution of higher learning is a hard earned point of pride at UPR, compared to institutions that have recently reneged their public mission with sudden and steep fee/tuition increases, such as at University of California, where students also opposed, occupied and met with police repression, but could not stave off a 32% fee hike imposed in November.
As UPR administrators continue to grapple with what was a nearly $200 million budget shortfall for next year going into the strike, in search of additional or alternative money saving and raising sources, an emboldened student movement will also regroup and weigh all its options. Future conflicts may be averted by altering the very style of governance at UPR, a top-down and paternalistic holdover from the past, as this could go a long way toward making students, as well as professors and staff who also have large stakes at play, part of a give-and-take process.
For come what may in the global fiscal crisis in the coming decade, these students are the future of new Americas of increasingly porous borders and dramatic, rapid demographic, political, cultural, informational and economic shifts, as the old order, the vestiges of the Cold War in Puerto Rico and in South Florida for example, fade into the proverbial sunset.
"We may not hold the power but we have the will power," stated law student Núñez, "and given the choice, I prefer the latter."
UPR administrators and Statehood party leaders would do well to recognize and reach out to the productive potential of this new power, shift gears and learn to act on the principles.
06 July 2010
Amer. Samoa Seeks Power Over Federal Laws
Governor’s proposal OKed at Constitutional Convention
WELLINGTON, New Zealand
Radio New Zealand International,
The American Samoa Constitutional Convention has approved a provision that would allow the legislature to stop federal laws that could be harmful for the territory.
The amendment was proposed by the Governor, Togiola Tulafono, who pointed to the minimum wage imposed by Washington against the wishes of the territory’s leaders.
He says he understands Congress is unlikely to accept the provision but he says it would provide an opening for negotiations with Congress on the problems caused by the federal laws.
The territory’s US Congressman, Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin, opposed the proposal, pointing to the funds the US has poured into American Samoa in the last ten years.
WELLINGTON, New Zealand
Radio New Zealand International,
The American Samoa Constitutional Convention has approved a provision that would allow the legislature to stop federal laws that could be harmful for the territory.
The amendment was proposed by the Governor, Togiola Tulafono, who pointed to the minimum wage imposed by Washington against the wishes of the territory’s leaders.
He says he understands Congress is unlikely to accept the provision but he says it would provide an opening for negotiations with Congress on the problems caused by the federal laws.
The territory’s US Congressman, Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin, opposed the proposal, pointing to the funds the US has poured into American Samoa in the last ten years.
02 July 2010
From 2011, Emancipation Day likely to be a national holiday in Sint Maarten
~ Says Leader of Government in Emancipation Day message ~
Daily Herald, Philipsburg
http://www.thedailyherald.com/islands/1-news/5336-from-2011-emancipation-day-likely-to-be-a-national-holiday-.html
Leader of Government Commissioner William Marlin says that with more autonomy after 10-10-10 St. Maarten will be able to make its own decisions, such as declaring Emancipation Day, being observed today, July 1, a National Holiday.
(Sint Maarten is scheduled to attain separate country status within the Kingdom of the Netherlands on 10th October 2010 [10-10-10] with the dismantling of the five-island - Netherlands Antilles and the creation of the separate countries of Curacao and Sint Maarten. The other three islands - Bonaire, Saba and Statia - will become partially integrated 'public entities' of the Kingdom - OTR).
In his Emancipation Day message in which he encouraged the population to rally for Country St. Maarten, Marlin said this day could not be celebrated "as if it is just another day," and pledged, "By the grace of God, July 1, 2011, will be a public holiday in the new country St. Maarten."
Marlin called on "each and every St. Maartener and all those who truly love this island to reflect on the past, not to dwell on it, but to learn the important lessons the victory over the monstrosity of slavery teaches us."
He continued: "I ask you to join me and the rest of St. Maarten in giving all we have to reach that new milestone of 10-10-10, when St. Maarten will become an autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
"It is a country we have to build together, a country we have to nurture together, a country we can all be proud of together. What we have not been able to do because we were part of the Netherlands Antilles will now be within our hands to do."
One of those things, he said, is to declare July 1 a national holiday. "A day like this cannot be commemorated as if it was just another day."
He said the struggle for St. Maarten to attain separate status had not started yesterday, or a decade ago when the electorate voted for the island territory to become an autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
"We are just a few months away from claiming victory on behalf of the entire St. Maarten population and in the name of all those who have paved the way for us to be this close to achieving another major milestone in our march towards destiny. 10-10-10 is right around the corner; we are, to use a sporting term, in the homestretch.
"Ain't no stopping us now ... we are indeed on the move. This is the time when we cannot allow ourselves to falter," said Marlin, who is currently in Curacao for the Kingdom Political Steering Group (PSG) meeting.
"This is the time to summon all the energy, all the strength, all the determination we have left in the tank and make the final push to the finish line. The race we are engaged in is a marathon, and as any marathon runner knows, managing your strengths and other resources is the key to victory."
Historical perspective
When on July 1, 1863, "the Dutch finally succumbed to pressure" to abolish slavery in all its territories, our ancestors in St. Maarten had already been taking their freedom by fleeing to the Northern half of the island where slavery had been abolished in 1848, Marlin said.
"That was a good 15 years earlier. In fact, history shows that our forefathers did not wait for freedom to be granted to them on a platter; they did everything they could to be free. We can only imagine today what it must have felt like on that sunny day when the Governor proclaimed the official abolition of slavery in the territory."
He said historical records showed that the former slaves had danced and fêted all day long. "They danced the ponum. One of the songs they sang, presumably under the flamboyant tree, included a line that indicated the slaves knew that 'massa' had hidden the news of their freedom from them. For how long? We can only speculate.
"That first, First of July, was a holiday. The celebrations, of course, went on for more than that day. If we looked more closely, perhaps we could trace the origin of our Carnival even to that period of our history. But Emancipation Day was not just about fêting then and shouldn't be just that now, either."
Now, 147 years later, the question is: what have we learnt from that Emancipation Day? he asked.
"I make bold to state that we, the descendants of those slaves, may have missed the true lessons of that day. Freedom, we must all agree, does not come free. Freedom requires sacrifice; it requires struggle; it requires hard work and perseverance. Our ancestors made the ultimate sacrifice to be free: they struggled, worked hard and persevered, never losing faith in that glorious day when they would achieve what is the birthright of every human being.
"Of course, before July 1, 1863, they were not even recognised as human beings. A donkey was worth just as much or sometimes even more than they were. What kind of struggle can be more noble than to free oneself from the metal and the mental shackles that slavery imposed not only on the slave, but perhaps more important, on his master as well?
"It can be argued, with good merit, I might add, that perhaps the main significance of July 1, 1863, lies in the fact that it was on that date we became St. Maarteners in the true, patriotic sense of the word, although the feeling of oneness, of belonging together, surely started long before that in the flats at Great Salt Pond, which our illustrious poet Lasana Sekou has aptly described as the 'Cradle of our Nation,'" said Marlin.
*******************************************************************************
On July 1, 1863, 11,654 slaves in the Netherlands Antilles were freed, of which 6,751 were in Curaçao and 33,621 were in Suriname. The Netherlands was one of the last countries to abolish slavery. The British had already abolished it in 1833 and the French in 1848. Plantation owners received compensation for each freed slave, but the slaves themselves received nothing. Plantation owners received 200 guilders per freed slave in Curaçao, 100 guilders in St. Maarten and 300 guilders in Suriname. - Daily Herald
Daily Herald, Philipsburg
http://www.thedailyherald.com/islands/1-news/5336-from-2011-emancipation-day-likely-to-be-a-national-holiday-.html
Leader of Government Commissioner William Marlin says that with more autonomy after 10-10-10 St. Maarten will be able to make its own decisions, such as declaring Emancipation Day, being observed today, July 1, a National Holiday.
(Sint Maarten is scheduled to attain separate country status within the Kingdom of the Netherlands on 10th October 2010 [10-10-10] with the dismantling of the five-island - Netherlands Antilles and the creation of the separate countries of Curacao and Sint Maarten. The other three islands - Bonaire, Saba and Statia - will become partially integrated 'public entities' of the Kingdom - OTR).
In his Emancipation Day message in which he encouraged the population to rally for Country St. Maarten, Marlin said this day could not be celebrated "as if it is just another day," and pledged, "By the grace of God, July 1, 2011, will be a public holiday in the new country St. Maarten."
Marlin called on "each and every St. Maartener and all those who truly love this island to reflect on the past, not to dwell on it, but to learn the important lessons the victory over the monstrosity of slavery teaches us."
He continued: "I ask you to join me and the rest of St. Maarten in giving all we have to reach that new milestone of 10-10-10, when St. Maarten will become an autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
"It is a country we have to build together, a country we have to nurture together, a country we can all be proud of together. What we have not been able to do because we were part of the Netherlands Antilles will now be within our hands to do."
One of those things, he said, is to declare July 1 a national holiday. "A day like this cannot be commemorated as if it was just another day."
He said the struggle for St. Maarten to attain separate status had not started yesterday, or a decade ago when the electorate voted for the island territory to become an autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
"We are just a few months away from claiming victory on behalf of the entire St. Maarten population and in the name of all those who have paved the way for us to be this close to achieving another major milestone in our march towards destiny. 10-10-10 is right around the corner; we are, to use a sporting term, in the homestretch.
"Ain't no stopping us now ... we are indeed on the move. This is the time when we cannot allow ourselves to falter," said Marlin, who is currently in Curacao for the Kingdom Political Steering Group (PSG) meeting.
"This is the time to summon all the energy, all the strength, all the determination we have left in the tank and make the final push to the finish line. The race we are engaged in is a marathon, and as any marathon runner knows, managing your strengths and other resources is the key to victory."
Historical perspective
When on July 1, 1863, "the Dutch finally succumbed to pressure" to abolish slavery in all its territories, our ancestors in St. Maarten had already been taking their freedom by fleeing to the Northern half of the island where slavery had been abolished in 1848, Marlin said.
"That was a good 15 years earlier. In fact, history shows that our forefathers did not wait for freedom to be granted to them on a platter; they did everything they could to be free. We can only imagine today what it must have felt like on that sunny day when the Governor proclaimed the official abolition of slavery in the territory."
He said historical records showed that the former slaves had danced and fêted all day long. "They danced the ponum. One of the songs they sang, presumably under the flamboyant tree, included a line that indicated the slaves knew that 'massa' had hidden the news of their freedom from them. For how long? We can only speculate.
"That first, First of July, was a holiday. The celebrations, of course, went on for more than that day. If we looked more closely, perhaps we could trace the origin of our Carnival even to that period of our history. But Emancipation Day was not just about fêting then and shouldn't be just that now, either."
Now, 147 years later, the question is: what have we learnt from that Emancipation Day? he asked.
"I make bold to state that we, the descendants of those slaves, may have missed the true lessons of that day. Freedom, we must all agree, does not come free. Freedom requires sacrifice; it requires struggle; it requires hard work and perseverance. Our ancestors made the ultimate sacrifice to be free: they struggled, worked hard and persevered, never losing faith in that glorious day when they would achieve what is the birthright of every human being.
"Of course, before July 1, 1863, they were not even recognised as human beings. A donkey was worth just as much or sometimes even more than they were. What kind of struggle can be more noble than to free oneself from the metal and the mental shackles that slavery imposed not only on the slave, but perhaps more important, on his master as well?
"It can be argued, with good merit, I might add, that perhaps the main significance of July 1, 1863, lies in the fact that it was on that date we became St. Maarteners in the true, patriotic sense of the word, although the feeling of oneness, of belonging together, surely started long before that in the flats at Great Salt Pond, which our illustrious poet Lasana Sekou has aptly described as the 'Cradle of our Nation,'" said Marlin.
*******************************************************************************
On July 1, 1863, 11,654 slaves in the Netherlands Antilles were freed, of which 6,751 were in Curaçao and 33,621 were in Suriname. The Netherlands was one of the last countries to abolish slavery. The British had already abolished it in 1833 and the French in 1848. Plantation owners received compensation for each freed slave, but the slaves themselves received nothing. Plantation owners received 200 guilders per freed slave in Curaçao, 100 guilders in St. Maarten and 300 guilders in Suriname. - Daily Herald
01 July 2010
US Virgin Islands Commemorates 162nd Anniversary of Emancipation
The 162nd anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the former Danish West Indies – the present day US Virgin Islands - will be commemorated on 3rd July 2010.
BY A'BUTNBTMUTAST CHENZIRA
http://stthomassource.com/content/commentary/open-forum/2010/07/01/editorial-vi-emancipation-day-2010
St. Thomas Source
On the eve of the Virgin Islands’ Emancipation in commemoration of July 3, 1848 and the United States’ Independence Day in recognition of July 4, 1776, many injustices and oppressive actions that American natives, residents, visitors and others are experiencing in 2010 is not in accordance with the treaties, declarations and rights of people of the Americas and the world.
Hence the question that arises from many is: Whose independence and emancipation are we celebrating, commemorating and supporting on July 4th and July 3rd of every year? What are the VI executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government doing in alliance with and respect to The People of these beloved Virgin Islands to institute and practice the principles associated with the freedom, liberty, justice, human and civil rights being celebrated during these holidays of VI Emancipation and US Independence?
In the 1770's, taxation without representation caused wars and revolutions from The People. In the 1800's, chattel slavery was ended on paper while mental slavery continued prolifically with more dehumanization and institutional oppression than ever recorded in contemporary history against The People. In the 1900's, wars, movements, protests, laws and more were mobilized and organized by The People along with various governments arranging planned assassinations, coup d’états and more for liberty, justice, freedom and independence to be denied to The People. In the opening of the first decade of the 21st century, guns, technology, germs, wars and biological/health inequities are rampant against The People.
Criminals are prosecuted and persecuted when found guilty of a crime. Who prosecutes and persecutes those guilty of crimes against The People? Even after 20th century global mandates for the end of colonialism and genocide, there still exists man-induced environmental “emergencies and tragedies”, neocolonialism and treacherous inhumane traditions that rule through the actions and institutions of economic “decepticons” and masters that have little or no regard for the self-engaged, internal and true governance of the common man and woman locally, nationally and internationally.
As the US House Mandates the USVI Constitutional Convention to reconvene to change what they "believe" is unconstitutional, why has the US failed to comply with UN Mandates of the Human Rights Charter of the 20th century and other pro-humanitarian legal UN and International World Court mandates? What are we doing and willing to sacrifice to resurrect healthy environments (land, air, sea +), reduce criminality from the top down, restore healthy lifestyles, provide affordable education, housing & social services, and heal our communities, nations and humanity?
This is the time for The People of the World Court to convene and demand justice. Enough is enough. The People of the Virgin Islands, from the grassroots and beyond, need to mandate and demand that our voices be heard and enacted upon with viable resources for their implementation from the same US Administration and its’ agencies that speak of being a living and global example of democracy. President Obama’s Administration and the hidden administration that governs this land of “liberty, freedom and justice for all” are to be accountable to The People. The trained and stellar legal minds within, associated with and supportive of the Obama Administration have a responsibility and ancestral duty to change the hands of time and implement the principles of genuine independence by doing what is right, just and true to end colonialism, neo-colonialism, fascism and terminate the colonial stronghold that the US has on the social existence, economic, ancestral, indigenous and inalienable rights of the Virgin Islands and beyond.
It is time for independence, emancipation and justice to be served to The People.
See also: “Political Evolution: The Next Phase of Emancipation” http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2009/07/political-evolution-next-phase-of.html
29 June 2010
US House Mandates US Virgin Islands Constitutional Convention to Reconsider Autonomous Proposals
Update
The US House of Representatives on 29th June 2010 adopted Senate Joint Resolution 33 which calls on the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands to reconvene to consider US Justice Department objections regarding certain autonomous provisions contained in the proposal. The Department considered the provisions as inconsistent with the applicability of the US Constitution (as it applies to the dependency territory). This is the latest development in the constitutional process of the territory where a proposed constitution was adopted in May 2009 by the required 2/3 of the 30 member Convention delegates.
The elected governor of the territory, John P. de Jongh, initially expressed opposition to a number of aspects contained in the text, and had declined to transmit the proposed constitution to the US Congress upon its receipt in May, 2009. He was later ordered by the territory’s court in December, 2009 to forward the text for US consideration.
Confident that the proposed constitution would ultimately be forwarded to Washington, Convention President Gerard Luz James addressed the Fourth Committee of the United Nations in October, 2009 where he explained the rationale for the respective provisions of the proposal based on the Convention’s own legal analysis. The US Virgin Islands is one of sixteen non self-governing territories listed by the United Nations under Chapter 11 (Article 73) of its Charter.
Following the transmittal of the proposal to the White House in December 2009, the process resumed in earnest. Convention President James and three additional members of the Convention defended the document before a US Congressional hearing of the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the Natural Resources Committee in March, 2010. Governor de Jongh also testified on the measure, along with a US Justice Department representative. Both expressed dissent on provisions of the text, with the Justice Department representative outlining objections to certain provisions intended to provide certain powers of autonomous governance to the territory, including those favouring the native population, the ownership of natural resources and voter eligibility.
President James, along with the territory’s non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives Donna Christian Christensen, and a US Justice Department official, later testified before the US Senate Natural Resources Committee in June 2010, explaining their respective positions. Several weeks later, James provided the UN with an update on the progress underway in formal testimony to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation. The United Nations Committee subsequently adopted its resolution on the territory which “welcome(ed) the proposal of a draft constitution emanating from the territory in 2009, as a result of the work of the Fifth Constitutional Convention, for review by the administering Power (US), and requests the administering Power to assist the territorial Government in achieving…the successful conclusion of the ongoing internal Constitutional Convention exercise.”
The United Nations Committee also requested the US Government “to facilitate the process for approval of the proposed territorial constitution in the United States Congress, and its implementation, once agreed in the territory.” (The full text of the UN committee resolution on the US Virgin Islands and other non self-governing territories will be published in due course).
The US House of Representatives has now adopted the resolution calling on the US Virgin Islands Fifth Constitutional Convention to re-convene, confirming the US Senate action a little over a week later. The measure now goes to US President Barack Obama for final adoption. S.J. Resolution 33 follows:
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. J. RES. 33
________________________________________
JOINT RESOLUTION
To provide for the reconsideration and revision of the proposed constitution of the United States Virgin Islands to correct provisions inconsistent with the Constitution and Federal law.
Whereas Congress, recognizing the basic democratic principle of government by the consent of the governed, enacted Public Law 94-584 (94 Stat. 2899) authorizing the people of the United States Virgin Islands to organize a government pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption;
Whereas a proposed constitution to provide for local self-government for the people of the United States Virgin Islands was submitted by the President to Congress on March 1, 2010, pursuant to Public Law 94-584;
Whereas Congress, pursuant to Public Law 94-584, after receiving a proposed United States Virgin Islands constitution from the President may approve, amend, or modify the constitution by joint resolution, but the constitution `shall be deemed to have been approved' if Congress takes no action within `sixty legislative days (not interrupted by an adjournment sine die of the Congress) after its submission by the President';
Whereas in carrying out Public Law 94-584, the President asked the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of the Interior, to provide views on the proposed constitution;
Whereas the Department of Justice concluded that several features of the proposed constitution warrant analysis and comment, including--
(1) the absence of an express recognition of United States sovereignty and the supremacy of Federal law;
(2) provisions for a special election on the territorial status of the United States Virgin Islands;
(3) provisions conferring legal advantages on certain groups defined by place and timing of birth, timing of residency, or ancestry;
(4) residence requirements for certain offices;
(5) provisions guaranteeing legislative representation of certain geographic areas;
(6) provisions addressing territorial waters and marine resources;
(7) imprecise language in certain provisions of the bill of rights of the proposed constitution;
(8) the possible need to repeal certain Federal laws if the proposed constitution of the United States Virgin Islands is adopted; and
(9) the effect of congressional action or inaction on the proposed constitution; and
Whereas Congress shares the concerns expressed by the executive branch of the Federal Government on certain features of the proposed constitution of the United States Virgin Islands and shares the view that consideration should be given to revising those features: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROPOSED CONSTITUTION FOR UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS.
It is the sense of Congress that Congress--
(1) recognizes the commitment and efforts of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands to develop a proposed constitution; and
(2) urges the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands to reconvene for the purpose of reconsidering and revising the proposed constitution in response to the views of the executive branch of the Federal Government.
SEC. 2. REVISION OF PROPOSED CONSTITUTION.
Section 5 of Public Law 94-584 (90 Stat. 2900) is amended--
(1) by designating the first, second, third, and fourth sentences as subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e), respectively;
(2) in subsection (b) (as so designated)--
(A) by striking `within' and all that follows through `after' and inserting `within 60 legislative days after'; and
(B) by inserting `or has urged the constitutional convention to reconvene,' after `in whole or in part,';
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) (as so designated) the following:
`(c) Revision of Proposed Constitution-
`(1) IN GENERAL- If a convention reconvenes and revises the proposed constitution, the convention shall resubmit the revised proposed constitution simultaneously to the Governor of the Virgin Islands and the President.
`(2) COMMENTS OF PRESIDENT- Not later than 60 calendar days after the date of receipt of the revised proposed constitution, the President shall--
`(A) notify the convention, the Governor, and Congress of the comments of the President on the revised proposed constitution; and
`(B) publish the comments in the Federal Register.'; and
(4) in subsection (d) (as so designated), by inserting `under subsection (b) (or, if revised pursuant to subsection (c), on publication of the comments of the President in the Federal Register)' after `or modified'.
Passed the Senate June 17, 2010.
Attest:
Secretary.
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
The US House of Representatives on 29th June 2010 adopted Senate Joint Resolution 33 which calls on the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands to reconvene to consider US Justice Department objections regarding certain autonomous provisions contained in the proposal. The Department considered the provisions as inconsistent with the applicability of the US Constitution (as it applies to the dependency territory). This is the latest development in the constitutional process of the territory where a proposed constitution was adopted in May 2009 by the required 2/3 of the 30 member Convention delegates.
The elected governor of the territory, John P. de Jongh, initially expressed opposition to a number of aspects contained in the text, and had declined to transmit the proposed constitution to the US Congress upon its receipt in May, 2009. He was later ordered by the territory’s court in December, 2009 to forward the text for US consideration.
Confident that the proposed constitution would ultimately be forwarded to Washington, Convention President Gerard Luz James addressed the Fourth Committee of the United Nations in October, 2009 where he explained the rationale for the respective provisions of the proposal based on the Convention’s own legal analysis. The US Virgin Islands is one of sixteen non self-governing territories listed by the United Nations under Chapter 11 (Article 73) of its Charter.
Following the transmittal of the proposal to the White House in December 2009, the process resumed in earnest. Convention President James and three additional members of the Convention defended the document before a US Congressional hearing of the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the Natural Resources Committee in March, 2010. Governor de Jongh also testified on the measure, along with a US Justice Department representative. Both expressed dissent on provisions of the text, with the Justice Department representative outlining objections to certain provisions intended to provide certain powers of autonomous governance to the territory, including those favouring the native population, the ownership of natural resources and voter eligibility.
President James, along with the territory’s non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives Donna Christian Christensen, and a US Justice Department official, later testified before the US Senate Natural Resources Committee in June 2010, explaining their respective positions. Several weeks later, James provided the UN with an update on the progress underway in formal testimony to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation. The United Nations Committee subsequently adopted its resolution on the territory which “welcome(ed) the proposal of a draft constitution emanating from the territory in 2009, as a result of the work of the Fifth Constitutional Convention, for review by the administering Power (US), and requests the administering Power to assist the territorial Government in achieving…the successful conclusion of the ongoing internal Constitutional Convention exercise.”
The United Nations Committee also requested the US Government “to facilitate the process for approval of the proposed territorial constitution in the United States Congress, and its implementation, once agreed in the territory.” (The full text of the UN committee resolution on the US Virgin Islands and other non self-governing territories will be published in due course).
The US House of Representatives has now adopted the resolution calling on the US Virgin Islands Fifth Constitutional Convention to re-convene, confirming the US Senate action a little over a week later. The measure now goes to US President Barack Obama for final adoption. S.J. Resolution 33 follows:
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. J. RES. 33
________________________________________
JOINT RESOLUTION
To provide for the reconsideration and revision of the proposed constitution of the United States Virgin Islands to correct provisions inconsistent with the Constitution and Federal law.
Whereas Congress, recognizing the basic democratic principle of government by the consent of the governed, enacted Public Law 94-584 (94 Stat. 2899) authorizing the people of the United States Virgin Islands to organize a government pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption;
Whereas a proposed constitution to provide for local self-government for the people of the United States Virgin Islands was submitted by the President to Congress on March 1, 2010, pursuant to Public Law 94-584;
Whereas Congress, pursuant to Public Law 94-584, after receiving a proposed United States Virgin Islands constitution from the President may approve, amend, or modify the constitution by joint resolution, but the constitution `shall be deemed to have been approved' if Congress takes no action within `sixty legislative days (not interrupted by an adjournment sine die of the Congress) after its submission by the President';
Whereas in carrying out Public Law 94-584, the President asked the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of the Interior, to provide views on the proposed constitution;
Whereas the Department of Justice concluded that several features of the proposed constitution warrant analysis and comment, including--
(1) the absence of an express recognition of United States sovereignty and the supremacy of Federal law;
(2) provisions for a special election on the territorial status of the United States Virgin Islands;
(3) provisions conferring legal advantages on certain groups defined by place and timing of birth, timing of residency, or ancestry;
(4) residence requirements for certain offices;
(5) provisions guaranteeing legislative representation of certain geographic areas;
(6) provisions addressing territorial waters and marine resources;
(7) imprecise language in certain provisions of the bill of rights of the proposed constitution;
(8) the possible need to repeal certain Federal laws if the proposed constitution of the United States Virgin Islands is adopted; and
(9) the effect of congressional action or inaction on the proposed constitution; and
Whereas Congress shares the concerns expressed by the executive branch of the Federal Government on certain features of the proposed constitution of the United States Virgin Islands and shares the view that consideration should be given to revising those features: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROPOSED CONSTITUTION FOR UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS.
It is the sense of Congress that Congress--
(1) recognizes the commitment and efforts of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands to develop a proposed constitution; and
(2) urges the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands to reconvene for the purpose of reconsidering and revising the proposed constitution in response to the views of the executive branch of the Federal Government.
SEC. 2. REVISION OF PROPOSED CONSTITUTION.
Section 5 of Public Law 94-584 (90 Stat. 2900) is amended--
(1) by designating the first, second, third, and fourth sentences as subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e), respectively;
(2) in subsection (b) (as so designated)--
(A) by striking `within' and all that follows through `after' and inserting `within 60 legislative days after'; and
(B) by inserting `or has urged the constitutional convention to reconvene,' after `in whole or in part,';
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) (as so designated) the following:
`(c) Revision of Proposed Constitution-
`(1) IN GENERAL- If a convention reconvenes and revises the proposed constitution, the convention shall resubmit the revised proposed constitution simultaneously to the Governor of the Virgin Islands and the President.
`(2) COMMENTS OF PRESIDENT- Not later than 60 calendar days after the date of receipt of the revised proposed constitution, the President shall--
`(A) notify the convention, the Governor, and Congress of the comments of the President on the revised proposed constitution; and
`(B) publish the comments in the Federal Register.'; and
(4) in subsection (d) (as so designated), by inserting `under subsection (b) (or, if revised pursuant to subsection (c), on publication of the comments of the President in the Federal Register)' after `or modified'.
Passed the Senate June 17, 2010.
Attest:
Secretary.
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
28 June 2010
UN Decolonisation Cmt. Calls for Negotiations on Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
United Nations Press Release
Meeting extended over a two-day period
After hearing petitioners on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) as well as a statement by the Foreign Minister of Argentina, the Special Committee on Decolonization recommended today that the General Assembly reiterate its call for direct negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom over that Non-Self-Governing Territory.
According to a draft resolution that the Special Committee approved by consensus, a peaceful and negotiated settlement of the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom was the only way to end the special and particular colonial situation of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). The Assembly would therefore take note of the views expressed by the President of Argentina and express regret that the implementation of resolutions on the Falklands Islands (Malvinas) had not yet started. Also by that text, the Assembly would request that both Governments consolidate the current process of dialogue and cooperation.
By other terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would acknowledging the special and particular colonial situation of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), which differed from others in light of the sovereignty dispute. Presenting the text, Chile’s representative said it reflected the main elements of the doctrine formulated by the United Nations over the years with regard to the Falklands (Malvinas) question.
He expressed support for Argentina’s sovereignty rights, citing the position of Latin American and Caribbean countries that the issue must be resolved definitively. Highlighting a special communiqué on the Malvinas question by the Nineteenth Ibero-American Summit of Heads of State and Government at the end of 2009, he stressed that “the upholding of colonial situations well into the twenty-first century is an anachronism that must end.”
Addressing the Special Committee prior to its action on the draft, Héctor Timerman, Argentina’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship, reiterated his country’s “inalienable and imprescriptible rights” over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, as well as surrounding maritime islands. He recalled the forcible expulsion of the Territory’s Argentine population by the United Kingdom in 1833, and efforts to prevent their return, emphasizing that the current population had not been subjected to a colonial Power and therefore could not possess the right to self-determination.
Considering both Argentina’s willingness to negotiate and the United Kingdom’s refusal to do so, he said the administering Power considered itself beyond the opinion of the international community and the United Nations. Even more worrisome was the United Kingdom’s standing as a permanent member of the Security Council, he said, stressing that “its arguments in favour of a peaceful solution are far from credible if it refuses to assume its own international obligations”. Given that, he noted that his country attached great importance to the role of the Secretary-General in encouraging resumed negotiations.
As the Special Committee took up the hearing of petitioners, Emma Edwards, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), called upon Argentina to recognize and adhere to previously signed agreements, saying the Territory’s people were willing to discuss several important issues, but not sovereignty. She called into question the Special Committee’s classification of the Territory as a “special and particular colonial situation”, citing “politics” as a major impediment to the defence of Islanders’ rights.
She said Argentina’s clear desire to claim the Territory was supported by several members of the Special Committee. However, given that the Islanders had repeatedly stated their opposition to becoming part of Argentina, the Special Committee would be going against the purpose, spirit and principles of General Assembly resolution 1514 if its members supported the draft resolution before them.
Gavin Short, another Member of the Legislative Assembly, emphasized that the Islands were an overseas Territory of the United Kingdom by choice. While self-governing in all sectors except defence and foreign affairs, the Falklands (Malvinas) were still the target of aggressive and bullying action from Argentina. As for the negotiations called for in the draft resolution, he said Argentina interpreted such discussions as a means to “take over my home and turn it into what would be to all intents and purposes a colony of Argentina.”
He stressed that Argentina’s claims of having inherited the Falklands (Malvinas) from Spain were historically and factually incorrect, as were its claims that Argentine nationals were not allowed into the Territory. Following Argentina’s 1982 invasion, peaceful coexistence had been re-established and agreements had been signed on the conservation of fisheries, hydrocarbons, and information sharing on preserving fish stocks in the South-West Atlantic. However, Argentina had later dismissed those agreements and issued a decree which contravened internationally binding treaties, he said.
Uruguay’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), reaffirmed the bloc’s support for Argentina’s legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute. Underscoring the necessity of resumed bilateral negotiations, he urged the United Kingdom to comply with the relevant resolutions and cooperate with the already-willing Argentina.
Other petitioners addressing the Special Committee today were Guillermo Raimundo Clifton, Alejandro Beatts and Nelson Daniel Gleadell.
Also delivering statements were representatives of China, Cuba, Syria, Russian Federation, Indonesia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Mali, Tunisia, Mexico (as host country for the First Latin America and Caribbean Unity Summit), Brazil and Guatemala.
Background
The Special Committee on (Decolonisation) met this morning to hear petitioners on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Before members was a working paper prepared by the Secretariat (document A/AC.109/2010/15) outlining constitutional and political developments, as well as progress on mine clearance, economic and social conditions, and the Territory’s future status, among other things.
A new constitution was approved in 2008, entering into force on 1 January 2009, the working paper says. According to the administering Power, the new document, as compared with the 1985 Constitution, enhances local democracy, establishes a greater degree of internal self-government and provides more transparency and accountability. By its terms, the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly, may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory, but full power to make laws is reserved for the British Crown.
On 6 November 2008, the paper states, the Government of Argentina protested against a “unilateral act” by the United Kingdom “whereby it claims to have adopted a new ‘constitution’ for the Malvinas Islands”, in disregard of General Assembly and Special Committee resolutions, and in “violation of the spirit of the provisional understandings under the sovereign formula” reached by Argentina and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom responded by rejecting those assertions on 3 December 2008, the paper states, adding that both Governments reiterated their respective positions during 2009 and 2010.
The paper says that on 28 November 2008, the Ninth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction — better known as the Ottawa Convention — decided by consensus to grant the United Kingdom an extension, until 1 March 2019, to complete mine clearance. Subsequently, the United Kingdom decided to clear four mined areas. In October 2009, it signed a contract with a private company, making arrangements to set up a demining project office to carry out quality control and assurance checks so as to ensure that the land was cleared safely and to the required depth. That work had already begun and was slated for completion by April 2010.
In its final report, adopted on 4 December 2009, the Convention’s Second Review Conference granted Argentina’s request for an extension of its deadline for destroying anti-personnel mines in the affected areas, until 1 January 2020, according to the working paper. The representative of the United Kingdom noted, in a letter to the General Assembly President dated 25 September 2008, that the Falkland Islands are not a colonial enclave, and that their inhabitants have chosen to retain their link with the United Kingdom. There can be no negotiations on the Territory’s sovereignty unless the islanders wish to do so. In his New Year’s message to the Territory for 2010, Prime Minister Gordon Brown restated his commitment to the islanders’ right to self-determination, saying he had expressed those sentiments in two meetings with President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina in 2009.
According to the paper, President Fernández, in her address to the General Assembly on 23 September 2008, referred to the situation where a “colonial enclave, our Malvinas Islands” persisted without the possibility of addressing the question of sovereignty with the United Kingdom, as called for in many Assembly resolutions. She said that, following a humanitarian request, the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom had agreed that family members with loved ones buried on the islands would be permitted to visit in order to pay tribute to those who had fought for their homeland. At a meeting of the Special Committee on 18 June 2009, Jorge Taiana, Argentina’s Foreign Minister, reiterated his country’s inalienable rights over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia, and the South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas, unlawfully occupied by the United Kingdom through an act of force.
By the terms of the draft resolution before the Special Committee (document A/AC.109/2010/L.15), the General Assembly would reiterate that the way to end the special and particular colonial situation of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is through a peaceful negotiated settlement of the sovereignty dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. It would take note of the views expressed by the President of Argentina, and express regret that implementation of resolutions on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) question has not yet started, in spite of widespread international support for negotiations between the two Governments. Further by that text, the Assembly would request that the two Governments consolidate the current process of dialogue and cooperation by resuming negotiations in order to find a peaceful solution as soon as possible.
Petitioners
EMMA EDWARDS, Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said the Territory enjoyed a healthy democracy and the role of the United Kingdom-appointed Governor had recently been limited to advising on issues of good governance, foreign affairs and defence. Argentina had undertaken many efforts to hinder the development of the Territory’s economy, she said, calling on that country to recognize and adhere to previously signed agreements. The Islanders were willing to discuss important issues with Argentina, but against talks on sovereignty.
Calling into question the Special Committee’s classification of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) as a “special and particular colonial situation”, she said politics was a major impediment to the defence of the Islanders’ rights. In that regard, she urged the Special Committee to make an important distinction between upholding politics and defending human rights, noting that Argentina had spoken many times on the international stage about the liberty, equality, and self-determination of its own people, yet did not afford the Islanders the same rights.
It was clear that Argentina wished to claim the Territory against its people’s wishes, she said, noting that several members of the Special Committee supported that claim, which went against what it stood for. Recalling that the people of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) had stated clearly, within the Special Committee, that they did not wish to be part of Argentina, she said that, by pursuing its sovereignty claim over the Territory, Argentina sought to colonize its people. In supporting the current draft resolution, which did not reflect a need to respect the Islanders’ right to self-determination, the Special Committee, would be going against the purpose, spirit and principles of General Assembly resolution 1514, she concluded.
GAVIN SHORT, Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), described himself as a sixth generation Islander, and emphasized that the Islands, far from being colonized, were an overseas Territory of the United Kingdom by choice, and had even been encouraged by the United Kingdom to become ever more independent internally. The Islands were self-governing in all aspects, except defence and foreign affairs, although they were free to negotiate and trade with whomever they wished, he said. However, the Islands were being targeted by an aggressive, bullying neighbour — Argentina.
The draft resolution referred to negotiating a solution to the sovereignty problem, he said. “For me there is no ‘problem’ to find a solution to. For Argentina, on the other hand, the word ‘negotiation’ has only one meaning: that they take over my home and turn it into what would be to all intents and purposes a colony of Argentina,” he said, asking the United Nations to respect the Islanders’ right to self-determination. He also criticized Argentina’s representative for having quoted resolution 31/49 (1097) to further his country’s unfounded claims and limit the Islanders’ ability to develop their economy, while paying no attention to the fact that in 1982 Argentina had invaded and subjected the Islanders to 74 days of oppression, and at times brutality, prior to the restoration of their freedom.
He said one myth around the dispute was that the Islands, formerly part of Spain, had been inherited by Argentina and, therefore, the principle of territorial integrity should apply. That was historically and factually incorrect, he said, noting that prior to 1883, France, the United Kingdom, Spain and Argentina had all claimed sovereignty over the Islands. Another myth was that Argentine nationals were not allowed into the Islands, yet there was no provision in the Territory’s immigration ordinance preventing them from going there. In the past two years, more than 5,000 Argentines had visited the Islands from cruise ships and more than 600 by air, he said, adding that they had all been granted visitors’ entry permits.
The Islanders had formed their own identity over the last 177 years and would “like nothing better than to have a peaceful coexistence with Argentina”, he said. After Argentina’s 1982 invasion, a peaceful coexistence had been established and agreements had been signed on the conservation of fisheries, hydrocarbons, and information sharing to preserve fish stocks in the South-West Atlantic. However, pragmatism had later been flung aside and the aggressive posturing had returned, he said. Argentina had torn up those agreements, opting instead to issue a decree, which, if enforced, would interfere with shipping to and from the Islands through international waters, and which contravened internationally binding treaties.
GUILLERMO RAIMUNDO CLIFTON, addressing the Special Committee as the grandson of a person born in the Malvinas Islands, noted that problems in the production sector of Argentina’s Patagonia region — deteriorating natural resources, increasing production costs and lack of markets, among others — were similar to those experienced in the Malvinas and could be solved in cooperation. Furthermore, the concerns of the Territory’s inhabitants could be addressed if the United Kingdom complied with United Nations resolutions with regard to sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and he South Sandwich Islands, he said, noting that the draft resolution before the Special Committee today urged the United Kingdom and Argentina to resume bilateral negotiations.
The expulsion of the Argentine population by the United Kingdom in 1833 meant that the current inhabitants of the Malvinas were not a native population with a lawful relationship to the Territory, he said. In that regard, the current inhabitants were “beneficiaries” of colonialism uninterested in resolving the issue though bilateral negotiations. Citing the basis of Argentina’s claim, he said Spain’s sovereignty had derived from the papal concession and occupation of territories in the Southern Atlantic, which the United Kingdom had recognized via several treaties and actions.
Spain had been in possession of the Malvinas from 1764 to 1811 and had placed the Territory under the jurisdiction of the Province of Buenos Aires in 1776, he recalled. Argentina, in taking up the rights and obligations inherited from Spain, had peacefully and exclusively occupied the Territory until its expulsion by the United Kingdom in 1833. The United Kingdom could, therefore, not invoke the right of first occupant, he said, stressing that its “brief, clandestine occupation” in 1766 and its use of force in 1833 could only be presented as a “plain exercise of British imperialism.”
ALEJANDRO BEATTS said that, as a native of the Malvinas, he disagreed with the views expressed by the speakers from the Legislative Assembly, adding that the colonial administration did not accept the existence of political parties or diverging views. It was merely a spokesperson for the London-based administration. The current Legislative Assembly had 13 members, including 5 from the Malvinas.
Pointing out that 60 per cent of the Territory’s 2,900 inhabitants were native-born, he said people born elsewhere should not be able to decide unilaterally what they wanted. Legal documents showed that Argentina’s historical claim to sovereignty was legitimate and that of the United Kingdom was not. To date, the islands were used to train the British troops that had intervened in Afghanistan and other countries. The current generation of Islanders must not be burdened with an unsolved issue, he said, emphasizing that, as the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010) came to end, there must be direct action to resolve the issue.
NELSON DANIEL GLEADELL, after outlining his family’s history, urged the Special Committee to continue to encourage dialogue between Argentina and the United Kingdom, which should be undertaken with a view to finding a “fair and lasting solution” to the sovereignty dispute, the persistence of which was not consistent with the seamless links between the islands and Patagonia. He called on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to cooperate.
Statements
The representative of Chile introduced the draft resolution “Question of the Falklands Islands (Malvinas)” (document A/AC.109/2010/L.15), saying it reflected the main elements of the doctrine formulated by the United Nations over the years with regard to that question. The text acknowledged the special and particular colonial situation, which differed from others due to the existence of a sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom.
He said the text also specified that the only way to end that dispute was a negotiated settlement, expressing regret that, despite the time spent and numerous resolutions adopted to date, direct diplomatic negotiations had not begun. Expressing support for Argentina’s sovereignty rights over the islands, he said that, for Latin America, the issue must be resolved definitively. That sentiment had been expressed in the December 2009 meeting of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) and at the February 2010 Latin America and Caribbean Unity Summit.
Additionally, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, held in Lima on 8 June, had adopted resolution AG/DEC.65, “Declaration on the Question of the Malvinas Islands”, he said. The XIX Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Ibero-American Community, held at the end of 2009, had issued a special communiqué on the Malvinas question. “The upholding of colonial situations well into the twenty-first century is an anachronism that must end,” he said, reiterating that “there are no valid reasons to delay the resolution of the Malvinas question” and appealing to the concerned parties promptly to resume effective negotiations.
HÉCTOR TIMERMAN, Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of Argentina, reiterated once more his country’s “inalienable and imprescriptible rights” over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, as well as surrounding maritime islands. The Territory had been unlawfully and forcibly occupied by the United Kingdom since 1833, he said, noting that it had expelled the Islands’ Argentine inhabitants, who had peacefully exercised the rights they had inherited from Spain. That forceful act was “further reflection of the imperialistic policy developed by the great Powers” of the nineteenth century, he said.
Argentina had never consented to that action, he emphasized, noting that, while the United Kingdom had prevented Argentines from settling on or owning their lands in a discriminatory and systematic manner, his own country had always encouraged an open-door policy. Since the Territory’s current “transplanted British population” could not be considered victims of colonial power, they could not have a right to self-determination, he said, cautioning that it would be dangerous to accept a precedent whereby a time lapse could assign rights to an administering Power despite protests by deprived peoples.
He said that when the United Kingdom refused to negotiate with Argentina — invoking the self-determination principle of resolution 1514 (XV) and alleging that it would not do so if its occupiers did not wish it — it sought to take advantage of the resolution to perpetuate an anachronistic colonial situation. He recalled that, in 1985, following two attempts by the administering Power to invoke the principle of self-determination, the international community had ratified the inapplicability of that principle. Further, the United Nations had consistently reiterated since 1965 its appeal for both parties to negotiate.
Underscoring the Argentine Government’s willingness to negotiate the dispute and to cooperate with the United Kingdom on the situation in the South Atlantic, he said the administering Power considered itself beyond the opinion of the international community, as well as that of the United Nations. Such an attitude was even more worrisome when expressed by a permanent member of the Security Council, which was responsible for maintaining international peace and security. “Its arguments in favour of a peaceful solution are far from credible if it refuses to assume its own international obligations,” he added.
In that regard, Argentina attached great importance to the role that the Secretary-General could play in bringing both parties back to negotiations, he said, noting that his country actively considered the interests of the Territory’s current population. As for the situation in the South Atlantic, he pointed to the United Kingdom’s “unilateral and unlawful” decision to exploit the non-renewable resources of the Argentine continental shelf in waters surrounding the Malvinas Islands. Expressing concern about the United Kingdom’s illegal military base in the Territory, he urged the Special Committee to support a call for resumed negotiations.
The representative of China, stressing the consistency of his country’s position, said the settlement of territorial disputes through peaceful negotiations was in line with the United Nations Charter and must be promoted by the international community. China hoped that the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom would continue their negotiations to find a peaceful solution at an early date. He supported the draft resolution before the Special Committee.
The representative of Cuba, expressing support for the Argentine Minister’s statement, pointed out that the Special Committee had approved 44 draft resolutions, 11 of which had subsequently been adopted by the General Assembly. The issue must be resolved, he stressed, adding that he admired the way in which Argentina had pursued its just claim. It was ready to recover the Islands through negotiations, in accordance with the resolutions of the Special Committee and the Assembly. However, despite repeated appeals, the two sides were not close to a definitive solution.
Reiterating his country’s unrestricted support for Argentina’s legitimate right of sovereignty over the Territory, he said: “The Malvinas Islands are and will continue to be Argentine.” Cuba called for a fair, effective solution that respected Argentina’s territorial integrity, as well as the interests of the Islanders, and on the United Kingdom to respond positively to Argentina’s request for the reactivation of substantive bilateral talks to resolve the matter in a just, peaceful and definitive way as soon as possible. Meanwhile, there should be no unilateral acts that could alter the situation on the Islands, he said.
The representative of Syria, welcoming Minister Timerman, hailed the historic and close ties between his own country and Argentina, saying that the Minister’s participation in the discussion underscored that country’s sincere and serious efforts to reach a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute. His presence also showed the importance that Argentina attached to the Special Committee’s work and the need to respect international sovereignty rights and achieve greater democracy.
Emphasizing that Argentina’s position was in keeping with that of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, he said the Government of Syria, therefore, supported the Minister’s presentation, as well as the draft resolution before the Special Committee. Approving it by consensus would assert the international community’s role in resolving the situation through peaceful means, he said, stressing that the pursuit of dialogue between Argentina and the United Kingdom would lead to an appropriate settlement and guarantee territorial integrity.
The representative of the Russian Federation said her Government supported the draft resolution and hoped it would be adopted without a vote, adding that there was a need for a just, mutually acceptable solution in the context of bilateral negotiations.
The representative of Indonesia stressed that uniform criteria could not be applied to every colonial situation since each was unique. While the positions of Argentina and the United Kingdom clearly differed, both Governments should resume accelerated negotiations for an agreement in the best interest of the Territory’s people, he said.
He emphasized his country’s full acknowledgement of the growing relationship between Argentina and the United Kingdom, calling on them to return to negotiations, in line with the relevant resolutions, as soon as possible. Indonesia supported the draft resolution and hoped it would be approved by consensus, he added.
The representative of Venezuela reiterated his full support for and solidarity with Argentina’s just demand for sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, as well as surrounding maritime areas. Resuming bilateral negotiations was the appropriate way to achieve a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the dispute over Argentina’s sovereignty rights and the United Kingdom’s violation of them, thereby resolving an anachronistic colonial situation. The Special Committee was dealing with a “special and particular” decolonization case, he reiterated, noting that President Hugo Chávez had expressed in various statements his strong, determined and fraternal support for Argentina’s legitimate rights.
He pointed to other forums that had urged a speedy resolution to the dispute in support of Argentina’s position, including the Union of South American Nations, the Summit of South American and Arab Countries, and the Summit of South American and African Countries, among others. Heads of State at the 2009 Ibero-American Summit had reaffirmed the need for the two Governments concerned to resume negotiations as soon as possible in order to find an early solution to the dispute. Venezuela encouraged the Secretary-General to continue to use his good offices to bring the two parties together and expressed hope that the draft resolution before the Special Committee would be approved by consensus.
The representative of Bolivia, endorsing the statement to be made on behalf MERCOSUR, said the United Kingdom had invaded the Malvinas in 1883, and one could not invoke the principle of self-determination in that case. One must invoke the principle of sovereignty. The dispute reaffirmed that multilateralism was becoming a driving force in matters concerning the integrity of States, he said, describing the matter as one of regional importance, as recalled during the recent MERCOSUR meeting in Montevideo. A solution must be found as soon as possible, he reiterated, stressing the importance of preventing obstructionism and overcoming divisions. Bolivia had co-sponsored the draft resolution, which warranted the support of all members of the Special Committee, he said, calling for its unanimous approval.
The representative of Ecuador, expressing support for the draft resolution, noted with regret that negotiations to resolve the sovereignty dispute had not taken place. Ecuador supported Argentina’s legitimate right to sovereignty over the Malvinas, he said, underscoring that country’s readiness to negotiate a peaceful solution. All relevant Assembly resolutions must be implemented because they recognized the Territory’s unique colonial situation, he said, adding that since calls for the United Kingdom to participate in bilateral negotiations had gone unheeded for 45 years, it was to be hoped that it would soon respond to such appeals and work towards negotiating a peaceful and lasting solution.
The representative of Nicaragua, describing Argentina’s sovereignty over the Territory as “unquestionable”, stressed that the colonial situation must end. The United Kingdom, having usurped the Malvinas by force in 1833, had expelled its Argentine inhabitants and blocked their return. Nicaragua shared the view of other Latin American countries, as well as that of the international community, that negotiations were the only way to reach a peaceful solution to the dispute. Highlighting Argentina’s consistent readiness to undertake negotiations, he said the United Kingdom’s illegal actions to exploit the Territory’s natural resources contributed nothing to resolving the dispute. Reaffirming his country’s unconditional support of Argentina’s legitimate right, he urged the United Kingdom to resume negotiations for an early, fair, just and equitable solution.
The representative of Sierra Leone affirmed her country’s commitment to its long-held position that the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom should be resolved through a peaceful, negotiated settlement. Urging an early resumption of bilateral negotiations on the matter, she recalled that, in Assembly resolution 637 (VII), Member States collectively decided to uphold the self-determination of all peoples, and committed to recognizing that principle as a prerequisite for the realization of fundamental human rights.
She cautioned, however, that any solution that failed to embrace the Islanders’ aspirations would be inconsistent with paragraph 2, Article 1, as well as Article 73 (b) of the United Nations Charter. In that context, and as the world prepared for the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, set to begin in 2011, Sierra Leone reiterated its support for the Islanders’ basic human right to self-determination. Subjecting people to foreign domination was a denial of their fundamental human rights and violated their fight to determine freely their political, economic, social and cultural status, she said.
The representative of Mali said his country enjoyed excellent relations with Argentina and the United Kingdom, and expressed regret that their dispute had yet to be resolved. Calling on both parties to create conditions conducive to the resumption of negotiations, he said he fully supported the draft resolution and hoped it would be approved by consensus.
The representative of Tunisia expressed his country’s hope that the draft resolution before the Special Committee would win unanimous approval, and that Argentina and the United Kingdom would resume negotiations for a solution was in keeping with the relevant Assembly resolutions.
The representative of Uruguay, speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), said the bloc and its associated States reaffirmed their support for Argentina’s legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute, the same position expressed in the Declaration of MERCOSUR Presidents in 1996 and 1999, as well as in successive joint communiqués adopted during its meetings. More recently, the bloc had renewed its commitment to Argentina’s position in a joint communiqué adopted on 8 December 2009.
While recognizing and supporting the Organization’s decolonization process, he noted that decolonization and self-determination were not synonymous. The only way to end the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands was to resume negotiations between both parties, he said, highlighting Argentina’s “permanent” willingness to do so, and urging United Kingdom to comply with the relevant resolutions calling for such negotiations.
The representative of Mexico (as host country for the First Latin American and Caribbean Unity Summit) read out the Declaration on the Question of the Malvinas Islands, adopted by Heads of State and Government at the Latin America and Caribbean Unity Summit last February, in which the region’s leaders reaffirmed their support for Argentina’s legitimate rights in its sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom. Both Governments should resume negotiations in order to reach, as soon as possible, a just, peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute. With regarding to the Treaty of Lisbon modifying the Treaty of the European Union and the Constitutive Treaty of the European Community, she said the inclusion of the Malvinas in the “Association of Overseas Countries and Territories” regime was incompatible with Argentina’s legitimate rights and with the sovereignty dispute over the archipelagos.
The representative of Brazil, supporting Argentina’s legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute, said she regretted the lack of progress in restarting negotiations on all aspects of the Islands’ future. Brazil recognized the constructive attitude of the Argentine Government and reaffirmed its interest in a prompt resumption of negotiations. She supported the good offices of the Secretary-General on the matter. She underlined the Declaration adopted by the Union of South American Nations, in which Heads of State and Government rejected the United Kingdom’s exploration for non-renewable natural resources on the Argentine continental shelf, in open opposition to Assembly resolution 31/49, which called on the two parties not to unilaterally alter the Islands while the process recommended by the Assembly was taking place.
The representative of Guatemala said the colonial situation in the Malvinas was defined as “special and particular” because it bore characteristics largely distinguishing it from classical cases of decolonization. Taking that into account, the United Nations had brushed aside the application of the principle of self-determination, and it was to be hoped that the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom would renew bilateral negotiations as soon as possible.
Argentina had always shown a desire to resolve the dispute in line with United Nations resolutions, he said, expressing hope that the United Kingdom would do the same, with a view to arriving at a peaceful solution of benefit to both parties. Concerned about the unilateral actions carried out by the United Kingdom in areas of the Argentine continental shelf and in violation of the stipulations contained in Assembly resolution 31/49, he said that concern had been reaffirmed in February by Heads of State and Government during the Latin America and Caribbean Summit. Hopefully the Special Committee’s new call for a peaceful, negotiated solution to the dispute would contribute to the clear goal held by the United Nations on the matter since 1965.
Urging Argentina and the United Kingdom to strengthen their efforts to resolve their prolonged sovereignty dispute over the Territory were the representatives of Paraguay and Peru — who associated themselves with the statement made yesterday on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) — as well as those of El Salvador and Papua New Guinea. The representatives of Paraguay, Peru and El Salvador stressed that Argentina’s rights in the matter must be taken into proper account, while Papua New Guinea’s delegate called for proper and fair consideration of the interests of both Governments.
Committee Decision
The Special Committee then decided by consensus to authorize Bashar Ja'afari (Syria), its Rapporteur, to submit a report on the session directly to the General Assembly for approval.
Meeting extended over a two-day period
After hearing petitioners on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) as well as a statement by the Foreign Minister of Argentina, the Special Committee on Decolonization recommended today that the General Assembly reiterate its call for direct negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom over that Non-Self-Governing Territory.
According to a draft resolution that the Special Committee approved by consensus, a peaceful and negotiated settlement of the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom was the only way to end the special and particular colonial situation of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). The Assembly would therefore take note of the views expressed by the President of Argentina and express regret that the implementation of resolutions on the Falklands Islands (Malvinas) had not yet started. Also by that text, the Assembly would request that both Governments consolidate the current process of dialogue and cooperation.
By other terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would acknowledging the special and particular colonial situation of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), which differed from others in light of the sovereignty dispute. Presenting the text, Chile’s representative said it reflected the main elements of the doctrine formulated by the United Nations over the years with regard to the Falklands (Malvinas) question.
He expressed support for Argentina’s sovereignty rights, citing the position of Latin American and Caribbean countries that the issue must be resolved definitively. Highlighting a special communiqué on the Malvinas question by the Nineteenth Ibero-American Summit of Heads of State and Government at the end of 2009, he stressed that “the upholding of colonial situations well into the twenty-first century is an anachronism that must end.”
Addressing the Special Committee prior to its action on the draft, Héctor Timerman, Argentina’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship, reiterated his country’s “inalienable and imprescriptible rights” over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, as well as surrounding maritime islands. He recalled the forcible expulsion of the Territory’s Argentine population by the United Kingdom in 1833, and efforts to prevent their return, emphasizing that the current population had not been subjected to a colonial Power and therefore could not possess the right to self-determination.
Considering both Argentina’s willingness to negotiate and the United Kingdom’s refusal to do so, he said the administering Power considered itself beyond the opinion of the international community and the United Nations. Even more worrisome was the United Kingdom’s standing as a permanent member of the Security Council, he said, stressing that “its arguments in favour of a peaceful solution are far from credible if it refuses to assume its own international obligations”. Given that, he noted that his country attached great importance to the role of the Secretary-General in encouraging resumed negotiations.
As the Special Committee took up the hearing of petitioners, Emma Edwards, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), called upon Argentina to recognize and adhere to previously signed agreements, saying the Territory’s people were willing to discuss several important issues, but not sovereignty. She called into question the Special Committee’s classification of the Territory as a “special and particular colonial situation”, citing “politics” as a major impediment to the defence of Islanders’ rights.
She said Argentina’s clear desire to claim the Territory was supported by several members of the Special Committee. However, given that the Islanders had repeatedly stated their opposition to becoming part of Argentina, the Special Committee would be going against the purpose, spirit and principles of General Assembly resolution 1514 if its members supported the draft resolution before them.
Gavin Short, another Member of the Legislative Assembly, emphasized that the Islands were an overseas Territory of the United Kingdom by choice. While self-governing in all sectors except defence and foreign affairs, the Falklands (Malvinas) were still the target of aggressive and bullying action from Argentina. As for the negotiations called for in the draft resolution, he said Argentina interpreted such discussions as a means to “take over my home and turn it into what would be to all intents and purposes a colony of Argentina.”
He stressed that Argentina’s claims of having inherited the Falklands (Malvinas) from Spain were historically and factually incorrect, as were its claims that Argentine nationals were not allowed into the Territory. Following Argentina’s 1982 invasion, peaceful coexistence had been re-established and agreements had been signed on the conservation of fisheries, hydrocarbons, and information sharing on preserving fish stocks in the South-West Atlantic. However, Argentina had later dismissed those agreements and issued a decree which contravened internationally binding treaties, he said.
Uruguay’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), reaffirmed the bloc’s support for Argentina’s legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute. Underscoring the necessity of resumed bilateral negotiations, he urged the United Kingdom to comply with the relevant resolutions and cooperate with the already-willing Argentina.
Other petitioners addressing the Special Committee today were Guillermo Raimundo Clifton, Alejandro Beatts and Nelson Daniel Gleadell.
Also delivering statements were representatives of China, Cuba, Syria, Russian Federation, Indonesia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Mali, Tunisia, Mexico (as host country for the First Latin America and Caribbean Unity Summit), Brazil and Guatemala.
Background
The Special Committee on (Decolonisation) met this morning to hear petitioners on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Before members was a working paper prepared by the Secretariat (document A/AC.109/2010/15) outlining constitutional and political developments, as well as progress on mine clearance, economic and social conditions, and the Territory’s future status, among other things.
A new constitution was approved in 2008, entering into force on 1 January 2009, the working paper says. According to the administering Power, the new document, as compared with the 1985 Constitution, enhances local democracy, establishes a greater degree of internal self-government and provides more transparency and accountability. By its terms, the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly, may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory, but full power to make laws is reserved for the British Crown.
On 6 November 2008, the paper states, the Government of Argentina protested against a “unilateral act” by the United Kingdom “whereby it claims to have adopted a new ‘constitution’ for the Malvinas Islands”, in disregard of General Assembly and Special Committee resolutions, and in “violation of the spirit of the provisional understandings under the sovereign formula” reached by Argentina and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom responded by rejecting those assertions on 3 December 2008, the paper states, adding that both Governments reiterated their respective positions during 2009 and 2010.
The paper says that on 28 November 2008, the Ninth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction — better known as the Ottawa Convention — decided by consensus to grant the United Kingdom an extension, until 1 March 2019, to complete mine clearance. Subsequently, the United Kingdom decided to clear four mined areas. In October 2009, it signed a contract with a private company, making arrangements to set up a demining project office to carry out quality control and assurance checks so as to ensure that the land was cleared safely and to the required depth. That work had already begun and was slated for completion by April 2010.
In its final report, adopted on 4 December 2009, the Convention’s Second Review Conference granted Argentina’s request for an extension of its deadline for destroying anti-personnel mines in the affected areas, until 1 January 2020, according to the working paper. The representative of the United Kingdom noted, in a letter to the General Assembly President dated 25 September 2008, that the Falkland Islands are not a colonial enclave, and that their inhabitants have chosen to retain their link with the United Kingdom. There can be no negotiations on the Territory’s sovereignty unless the islanders wish to do so. In his New Year’s message to the Territory for 2010, Prime Minister Gordon Brown restated his commitment to the islanders’ right to self-determination, saying he had expressed those sentiments in two meetings with President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina in 2009.
According to the paper, President Fernández, in her address to the General Assembly on 23 September 2008, referred to the situation where a “colonial enclave, our Malvinas Islands” persisted without the possibility of addressing the question of sovereignty with the United Kingdom, as called for in many Assembly resolutions. She said that, following a humanitarian request, the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom had agreed that family members with loved ones buried on the islands would be permitted to visit in order to pay tribute to those who had fought for their homeland. At a meeting of the Special Committee on 18 June 2009, Jorge Taiana, Argentina’s Foreign Minister, reiterated his country’s inalienable rights over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia, and the South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas, unlawfully occupied by the United Kingdom through an act of force.
By the terms of the draft resolution before the Special Committee (document A/AC.109/2010/L.15), the General Assembly would reiterate that the way to end the special and particular colonial situation of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is through a peaceful negotiated settlement of the sovereignty dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. It would take note of the views expressed by the President of Argentina, and express regret that implementation of resolutions on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) question has not yet started, in spite of widespread international support for negotiations between the two Governments. Further by that text, the Assembly would request that the two Governments consolidate the current process of dialogue and cooperation by resuming negotiations in order to find a peaceful solution as soon as possible.
Petitioners
EMMA EDWARDS, Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said the Territory enjoyed a healthy democracy and the role of the United Kingdom-appointed Governor had recently been limited to advising on issues of good governance, foreign affairs and defence. Argentina had undertaken many efforts to hinder the development of the Territory’s economy, she said, calling on that country to recognize and adhere to previously signed agreements. The Islanders were willing to discuss important issues with Argentina, but against talks on sovereignty.
Calling into question the Special Committee’s classification of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) as a “special and particular colonial situation”, she said politics was a major impediment to the defence of the Islanders’ rights. In that regard, she urged the Special Committee to make an important distinction between upholding politics and defending human rights, noting that Argentina had spoken many times on the international stage about the liberty, equality, and self-determination of its own people, yet did not afford the Islanders the same rights.
It was clear that Argentina wished to claim the Territory against its people’s wishes, she said, noting that several members of the Special Committee supported that claim, which went against what it stood for. Recalling that the people of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) had stated clearly, within the Special Committee, that they did not wish to be part of Argentina, she said that, by pursuing its sovereignty claim over the Territory, Argentina sought to colonize its people. In supporting the current draft resolution, which did not reflect a need to respect the Islanders’ right to self-determination, the Special Committee, would be going against the purpose, spirit and principles of General Assembly resolution 1514, she concluded.
GAVIN SHORT, Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), described himself as a sixth generation Islander, and emphasized that the Islands, far from being colonized, were an overseas Territory of the United Kingdom by choice, and had even been encouraged by the United Kingdom to become ever more independent internally. The Islands were self-governing in all aspects, except defence and foreign affairs, although they were free to negotiate and trade with whomever they wished, he said. However, the Islands were being targeted by an aggressive, bullying neighbour — Argentina.
The draft resolution referred to negotiating a solution to the sovereignty problem, he said. “For me there is no ‘problem’ to find a solution to. For Argentina, on the other hand, the word ‘negotiation’ has only one meaning: that they take over my home and turn it into what would be to all intents and purposes a colony of Argentina,” he said, asking the United Nations to respect the Islanders’ right to self-determination. He also criticized Argentina’s representative for having quoted resolution 31/49 (1097) to further his country’s unfounded claims and limit the Islanders’ ability to develop their economy, while paying no attention to the fact that in 1982 Argentina had invaded and subjected the Islanders to 74 days of oppression, and at times brutality, prior to the restoration of their freedom.
He said one myth around the dispute was that the Islands, formerly part of Spain, had been inherited by Argentina and, therefore, the principle of territorial integrity should apply. That was historically and factually incorrect, he said, noting that prior to 1883, France, the United Kingdom, Spain and Argentina had all claimed sovereignty over the Islands. Another myth was that Argentine nationals were not allowed into the Islands, yet there was no provision in the Territory’s immigration ordinance preventing them from going there. In the past two years, more than 5,000 Argentines had visited the Islands from cruise ships and more than 600 by air, he said, adding that they had all been granted visitors’ entry permits.
The Islanders had formed their own identity over the last 177 years and would “like nothing better than to have a peaceful coexistence with Argentina”, he said. After Argentina’s 1982 invasion, a peaceful coexistence had been established and agreements had been signed on the conservation of fisheries, hydrocarbons, and information sharing to preserve fish stocks in the South-West Atlantic. However, pragmatism had later been flung aside and the aggressive posturing had returned, he said. Argentina had torn up those agreements, opting instead to issue a decree, which, if enforced, would interfere with shipping to and from the Islands through international waters, and which contravened internationally binding treaties.
GUILLERMO RAIMUNDO CLIFTON, addressing the Special Committee as the grandson of a person born in the Malvinas Islands, noted that problems in the production sector of Argentina’s Patagonia region — deteriorating natural resources, increasing production costs and lack of markets, among others — were similar to those experienced in the Malvinas and could be solved in cooperation. Furthermore, the concerns of the Territory’s inhabitants could be addressed if the United Kingdom complied with United Nations resolutions with regard to sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and he South Sandwich Islands, he said, noting that the draft resolution before the Special Committee today urged the United Kingdom and Argentina to resume bilateral negotiations.
The expulsion of the Argentine population by the United Kingdom in 1833 meant that the current inhabitants of the Malvinas were not a native population with a lawful relationship to the Territory, he said. In that regard, the current inhabitants were “beneficiaries” of colonialism uninterested in resolving the issue though bilateral negotiations. Citing the basis of Argentina’s claim, he said Spain’s sovereignty had derived from the papal concession and occupation of territories in the Southern Atlantic, which the United Kingdom had recognized via several treaties and actions.
Spain had been in possession of the Malvinas from 1764 to 1811 and had placed the Territory under the jurisdiction of the Province of Buenos Aires in 1776, he recalled. Argentina, in taking up the rights and obligations inherited from Spain, had peacefully and exclusively occupied the Territory until its expulsion by the United Kingdom in 1833. The United Kingdom could, therefore, not invoke the right of first occupant, he said, stressing that its “brief, clandestine occupation” in 1766 and its use of force in 1833 could only be presented as a “plain exercise of British imperialism.”
ALEJANDRO BEATTS said that, as a native of the Malvinas, he disagreed with the views expressed by the speakers from the Legislative Assembly, adding that the colonial administration did not accept the existence of political parties or diverging views. It was merely a spokesperson for the London-based administration. The current Legislative Assembly had 13 members, including 5 from the Malvinas.
Pointing out that 60 per cent of the Territory’s 2,900 inhabitants were native-born, he said people born elsewhere should not be able to decide unilaterally what they wanted. Legal documents showed that Argentina’s historical claim to sovereignty was legitimate and that of the United Kingdom was not. To date, the islands were used to train the British troops that had intervened in Afghanistan and other countries. The current generation of Islanders must not be burdened with an unsolved issue, he said, emphasizing that, as the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010) came to end, there must be direct action to resolve the issue.
NELSON DANIEL GLEADELL, after outlining his family’s history, urged the Special Committee to continue to encourage dialogue between Argentina and the United Kingdom, which should be undertaken with a view to finding a “fair and lasting solution” to the sovereignty dispute, the persistence of which was not consistent with the seamless links between the islands and Patagonia. He called on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to cooperate.
Statements
The representative of Chile introduced the draft resolution “Question of the Falklands Islands (Malvinas)” (document A/AC.109/2010/L.15), saying it reflected the main elements of the doctrine formulated by the United Nations over the years with regard to that question. The text acknowledged the special and particular colonial situation, which differed from others due to the existence of a sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom.
He said the text also specified that the only way to end that dispute was a negotiated settlement, expressing regret that, despite the time spent and numerous resolutions adopted to date, direct diplomatic negotiations had not begun. Expressing support for Argentina’s sovereignty rights over the islands, he said that, for Latin America, the issue must be resolved definitively. That sentiment had been expressed in the December 2009 meeting of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) and at the February 2010 Latin America and Caribbean Unity Summit.
Additionally, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, held in Lima on 8 June, had adopted resolution AG/DEC.65, “Declaration on the Question of the Malvinas Islands”, he said. The XIX Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Ibero-American Community, held at the end of 2009, had issued a special communiqué on the Malvinas question. “The upholding of colonial situations well into the twenty-first century is an anachronism that must end,” he said, reiterating that “there are no valid reasons to delay the resolution of the Malvinas question” and appealing to the concerned parties promptly to resume effective negotiations.
HÉCTOR TIMERMAN, Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of Argentina, reiterated once more his country’s “inalienable and imprescriptible rights” over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, as well as surrounding maritime islands. The Territory had been unlawfully and forcibly occupied by the United Kingdom since 1833, he said, noting that it had expelled the Islands’ Argentine inhabitants, who had peacefully exercised the rights they had inherited from Spain. That forceful act was “further reflection of the imperialistic policy developed by the great Powers” of the nineteenth century, he said.
Argentina had never consented to that action, he emphasized, noting that, while the United Kingdom had prevented Argentines from settling on or owning their lands in a discriminatory and systematic manner, his own country had always encouraged an open-door policy. Since the Territory’s current “transplanted British population” could not be considered victims of colonial power, they could not have a right to self-determination, he said, cautioning that it would be dangerous to accept a precedent whereby a time lapse could assign rights to an administering Power despite protests by deprived peoples.
He said that when the United Kingdom refused to negotiate with Argentina — invoking the self-determination principle of resolution 1514 (XV) and alleging that it would not do so if its occupiers did not wish it — it sought to take advantage of the resolution to perpetuate an anachronistic colonial situation. He recalled that, in 1985, following two attempts by the administering Power to invoke the principle of self-determination, the international community had ratified the inapplicability of that principle. Further, the United Nations had consistently reiterated since 1965 its appeal for both parties to negotiate.
Underscoring the Argentine Government’s willingness to negotiate the dispute and to cooperate with the United Kingdom on the situation in the South Atlantic, he said the administering Power considered itself beyond the opinion of the international community, as well as that of the United Nations. Such an attitude was even more worrisome when expressed by a permanent member of the Security Council, which was responsible for maintaining international peace and security. “Its arguments in favour of a peaceful solution are far from credible if it refuses to assume its own international obligations,” he added.
In that regard, Argentina attached great importance to the role that the Secretary-General could play in bringing both parties back to negotiations, he said, noting that his country actively considered the interests of the Territory’s current population. As for the situation in the South Atlantic, he pointed to the United Kingdom’s “unilateral and unlawful” decision to exploit the non-renewable resources of the Argentine continental shelf in waters surrounding the Malvinas Islands. Expressing concern about the United Kingdom’s illegal military base in the Territory, he urged the Special Committee to support a call for resumed negotiations.
The representative of China, stressing the consistency of his country’s position, said the settlement of territorial disputes through peaceful negotiations was in line with the United Nations Charter and must be promoted by the international community. China hoped that the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom would continue their negotiations to find a peaceful solution at an early date. He supported the draft resolution before the Special Committee.
The representative of Cuba, expressing support for the Argentine Minister’s statement, pointed out that the Special Committee had approved 44 draft resolutions, 11 of which had subsequently been adopted by the General Assembly. The issue must be resolved, he stressed, adding that he admired the way in which Argentina had pursued its just claim. It was ready to recover the Islands through negotiations, in accordance with the resolutions of the Special Committee and the Assembly. However, despite repeated appeals, the two sides were not close to a definitive solution.
Reiterating his country’s unrestricted support for Argentina’s legitimate right of sovereignty over the Territory, he said: “The Malvinas Islands are and will continue to be Argentine.” Cuba called for a fair, effective solution that respected Argentina’s territorial integrity, as well as the interests of the Islanders, and on the United Kingdom to respond positively to Argentina’s request for the reactivation of substantive bilateral talks to resolve the matter in a just, peaceful and definitive way as soon as possible. Meanwhile, there should be no unilateral acts that could alter the situation on the Islands, he said.
The representative of Syria, welcoming Minister Timerman, hailed the historic and close ties between his own country and Argentina, saying that the Minister’s participation in the discussion underscored that country’s sincere and serious efforts to reach a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute. His presence also showed the importance that Argentina attached to the Special Committee’s work and the need to respect international sovereignty rights and achieve greater democracy.
Emphasizing that Argentina’s position was in keeping with that of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, he said the Government of Syria, therefore, supported the Minister’s presentation, as well as the draft resolution before the Special Committee. Approving it by consensus would assert the international community’s role in resolving the situation through peaceful means, he said, stressing that the pursuit of dialogue between Argentina and the United Kingdom would lead to an appropriate settlement and guarantee territorial integrity.
The representative of the Russian Federation said her Government supported the draft resolution and hoped it would be adopted without a vote, adding that there was a need for a just, mutually acceptable solution in the context of bilateral negotiations.
The representative of Indonesia stressed that uniform criteria could not be applied to every colonial situation since each was unique. While the positions of Argentina and the United Kingdom clearly differed, both Governments should resume accelerated negotiations for an agreement in the best interest of the Territory’s people, he said.
He emphasized his country’s full acknowledgement of the growing relationship between Argentina and the United Kingdom, calling on them to return to negotiations, in line with the relevant resolutions, as soon as possible. Indonesia supported the draft resolution and hoped it would be approved by consensus, he added.
The representative of Venezuela reiterated his full support for and solidarity with Argentina’s just demand for sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, as well as surrounding maritime areas. Resuming bilateral negotiations was the appropriate way to achieve a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the dispute over Argentina’s sovereignty rights and the United Kingdom’s violation of them, thereby resolving an anachronistic colonial situation. The Special Committee was dealing with a “special and particular” decolonization case, he reiterated, noting that President Hugo Chávez had expressed in various statements his strong, determined and fraternal support for Argentina’s legitimate rights.
He pointed to other forums that had urged a speedy resolution to the dispute in support of Argentina’s position, including the Union of South American Nations, the Summit of South American and Arab Countries, and the Summit of South American and African Countries, among others. Heads of State at the 2009 Ibero-American Summit had reaffirmed the need for the two Governments concerned to resume negotiations as soon as possible in order to find an early solution to the dispute. Venezuela encouraged the Secretary-General to continue to use his good offices to bring the two parties together and expressed hope that the draft resolution before the Special Committee would be approved by consensus.
The representative of Bolivia, endorsing the statement to be made on behalf MERCOSUR, said the United Kingdom had invaded the Malvinas in 1883, and one could not invoke the principle of self-determination in that case. One must invoke the principle of sovereignty. The dispute reaffirmed that multilateralism was becoming a driving force in matters concerning the integrity of States, he said, describing the matter as one of regional importance, as recalled during the recent MERCOSUR meeting in Montevideo. A solution must be found as soon as possible, he reiterated, stressing the importance of preventing obstructionism and overcoming divisions. Bolivia had co-sponsored the draft resolution, which warranted the support of all members of the Special Committee, he said, calling for its unanimous approval.
The representative of Ecuador, expressing support for the draft resolution, noted with regret that negotiations to resolve the sovereignty dispute had not taken place. Ecuador supported Argentina’s legitimate right to sovereignty over the Malvinas, he said, underscoring that country’s readiness to negotiate a peaceful solution. All relevant Assembly resolutions must be implemented because they recognized the Territory’s unique colonial situation, he said, adding that since calls for the United Kingdom to participate in bilateral negotiations had gone unheeded for 45 years, it was to be hoped that it would soon respond to such appeals and work towards negotiating a peaceful and lasting solution.
The representative of Nicaragua, describing Argentina’s sovereignty over the Territory as “unquestionable”, stressed that the colonial situation must end. The United Kingdom, having usurped the Malvinas by force in 1833, had expelled its Argentine inhabitants and blocked their return. Nicaragua shared the view of other Latin American countries, as well as that of the international community, that negotiations were the only way to reach a peaceful solution to the dispute. Highlighting Argentina’s consistent readiness to undertake negotiations, he said the United Kingdom’s illegal actions to exploit the Territory’s natural resources contributed nothing to resolving the dispute. Reaffirming his country’s unconditional support of Argentina’s legitimate right, he urged the United Kingdom to resume negotiations for an early, fair, just and equitable solution.
The representative of Sierra Leone affirmed her country’s commitment to its long-held position that the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom should be resolved through a peaceful, negotiated settlement. Urging an early resumption of bilateral negotiations on the matter, she recalled that, in Assembly resolution 637 (VII), Member States collectively decided to uphold the self-determination of all peoples, and committed to recognizing that principle as a prerequisite for the realization of fundamental human rights.
She cautioned, however, that any solution that failed to embrace the Islanders’ aspirations would be inconsistent with paragraph 2, Article 1, as well as Article 73 (b) of the United Nations Charter. In that context, and as the world prepared for the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, set to begin in 2011, Sierra Leone reiterated its support for the Islanders’ basic human right to self-determination. Subjecting people to foreign domination was a denial of their fundamental human rights and violated their fight to determine freely their political, economic, social and cultural status, she said.
The representative of Mali said his country enjoyed excellent relations with Argentina and the United Kingdom, and expressed regret that their dispute had yet to be resolved. Calling on both parties to create conditions conducive to the resumption of negotiations, he said he fully supported the draft resolution and hoped it would be approved by consensus.
The representative of Tunisia expressed his country’s hope that the draft resolution before the Special Committee would win unanimous approval, and that Argentina and the United Kingdom would resume negotiations for a solution was in keeping with the relevant Assembly resolutions.
The representative of Uruguay, speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), said the bloc and its associated States reaffirmed their support for Argentina’s legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute, the same position expressed in the Declaration of MERCOSUR Presidents in 1996 and 1999, as well as in successive joint communiqués adopted during its meetings. More recently, the bloc had renewed its commitment to Argentina’s position in a joint communiqué adopted on 8 December 2009.
While recognizing and supporting the Organization’s decolonization process, he noted that decolonization and self-determination were not synonymous. The only way to end the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands was to resume negotiations between both parties, he said, highlighting Argentina’s “permanent” willingness to do so, and urging United Kingdom to comply with the relevant resolutions calling for such negotiations.
The representative of Mexico (as host country for the First Latin American and Caribbean Unity Summit) read out the Declaration on the Question of the Malvinas Islands, adopted by Heads of State and Government at the Latin America and Caribbean Unity Summit last February, in which the region’s leaders reaffirmed their support for Argentina’s legitimate rights in its sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom. Both Governments should resume negotiations in order to reach, as soon as possible, a just, peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute. With regarding to the Treaty of Lisbon modifying the Treaty of the European Union and the Constitutive Treaty of the European Community, she said the inclusion of the Malvinas in the “Association of Overseas Countries and Territories” regime was incompatible with Argentina’s legitimate rights and with the sovereignty dispute over the archipelagos.
The representative of Brazil, supporting Argentina’s legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute, said she regretted the lack of progress in restarting negotiations on all aspects of the Islands’ future. Brazil recognized the constructive attitude of the Argentine Government and reaffirmed its interest in a prompt resumption of negotiations. She supported the good offices of the Secretary-General on the matter. She underlined the Declaration adopted by the Union of South American Nations, in which Heads of State and Government rejected the United Kingdom’s exploration for non-renewable natural resources on the Argentine continental shelf, in open opposition to Assembly resolution 31/49, which called on the two parties not to unilaterally alter the Islands while the process recommended by the Assembly was taking place.
The representative of Guatemala said the colonial situation in the Malvinas was defined as “special and particular” because it bore characteristics largely distinguishing it from classical cases of decolonization. Taking that into account, the United Nations had brushed aside the application of the principle of self-determination, and it was to be hoped that the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom would renew bilateral negotiations as soon as possible.
Argentina had always shown a desire to resolve the dispute in line with United Nations resolutions, he said, expressing hope that the United Kingdom would do the same, with a view to arriving at a peaceful solution of benefit to both parties. Concerned about the unilateral actions carried out by the United Kingdom in areas of the Argentine continental shelf and in violation of the stipulations contained in Assembly resolution 31/49, he said that concern had been reaffirmed in February by Heads of State and Government during the Latin America and Caribbean Summit. Hopefully the Special Committee’s new call for a peaceful, negotiated solution to the dispute would contribute to the clear goal held by the United Nations on the matter since 1965.
Urging Argentina and the United Kingdom to strengthen their efforts to resolve their prolonged sovereignty dispute over the Territory were the representatives of Paraguay and Peru — who associated themselves with the statement made yesterday on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) — as well as those of El Salvador and Papua New Guinea. The representatives of Paraguay, Peru and El Salvador stressed that Argentina’s rights in the matter must be taken into proper account, while Papua New Guinea’s delegate called for proper and fair consideration of the interests of both Governments.
Committee Decision
The Special Committee then decided by consensus to authorize Bashar Ja'afari (Syria), its Rapporteur, to submit a report on the session directly to the General Assembly for approval.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)