Turks & Caicos Islands People's Democratic Movement calls for return to democratic government

*****

Opening statement to Constitutional talks by Leader of the People's Democratic Movement (PDM)

 Turks & Caicos Islands

by Doug Parnell, PDM

June 16, 2011

Good morning Ministers. Thank you for bringing direct talks to this process; it is something that we have consistently called for.

The Peoples Democratic Movement stands for political and constitutional advancement of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands. We believe in a system that is democratic and accountable. We therefore cannot support any measure that will cause regression of the Turks and Caicos people and our rights. We submit that the aims of improving integrity in public life, more efficient arrangements for government, and an improved justice system, achieving a parliament representative of the people, bettering public financial management and promoting an inclusive community are not at odds with constitutional advancement, however this draft does not accomplish this for our people.

In the spring of 2009 the three main political parties in the United Kingdom decided through consensus to intervene and partially suspend our constitution because there was deemed to be a high probability of systemic corruption in the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Most persons felt that the real purpose of the suspension of the constitution was to provide an opportunity for the British Government to fight corruption and bring to justice those who were accused of criminality in Government without local interference.

However, it was our system of Government and way of life that has also been put on trial and the measures to correct a system deemed inappropriate by HMG are being imposed against the will of the people. Out of a sense of love, compassion and duty to our people we have made efforts to at home and here in London to alter this approach but have been met with resistance on the part of the FCO officials, and the Interim Government in favor of forging ahead with an agenda to correct a “system” that has not been proven to be the problem but to the contrary in the case o f the Public Accounts Committee of 2007-2009 helped to uncover the wrongs of the old Government.

Simply put, it wasn’t our 2006 constitution or its organs that failed but those elected by the people and the decision makers at FCO that failed to act appropriately on behalf of the people. In fact, in a paper entitled Governance in the UK Overseas Territories: The Case of the Turks and Caicos Islands this point about UK Government neglect is well argued stating, “ But the UK government can be blamed for not doing enough to pre-empt the collapse in governance in the TCI in the first place. There had been strong indications for several years that there were deep rooted problems in the TCI. Numerous studies were undertaken that highlighted issues of concern……After the last report the Governor of the TCI expressed serious concerns about what was happening and even suggested a Commission of Inquiry into Crown Land deals should be established (TCI Commission of Inquiry 2009: 94-95). However, despite these reports only limited action was seemingly taken by the UK authorities. The FCO was certainly aware of some of the problems in the TCI.”

Since our focus in these talks is the restoration of our constitution to aid a swift return to a democratically elected Government and Legislature it is important to note that there are very flawed and dangerous arguments that underpin the proposed changes which have been put forward by some of our own quietly ambitious Turks and Caicos Islanders, who have used our political misfortunes of having elected incompetent and venal Governments over the years as an opportunity to push a political agenda of obtaining power but in the guise of improving society.

The false arguments we hope to address are:

That our political parties are insular and control a monopoly on the Government and elections process

That there are individuals who have a contribution to make to the advancement of the Government and deserving people are being denied because they cannot climb the ranks of these political institutions

That our community is not open enough to allow residents a right to participate in the direction of the country

That transactional politics have corroded a system of free and fair elections 

That Some islands and people in the Turks and Caicos Islands are unrepresented in the Parliament and deserve special status at any cost

 That the political parties must be regulated because they cannot be trusted to put measures in place to police themselves. And finally, that we(the political parties) have no greater mandate than those appointed by the British Government.

During these discussions we intend to disprove these arguments and prove that through our history, though not perfect, our people have sought to advance constitutional measures to protect the rights of individuals, improve the checks and balances in the administration of Government, and most importantly promote the Institution of Integrity in Public Life, and that the proposed draft constitution is an overreaction to correct an anomaly in our history.

We also intend to prove that the underlying assumptions bringing about the draft constitution are flawed. Effectively, our plea is for the UK Government to reconsider its approach and enact a constitution that gives the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands greater autonomy over our destiny, the Government the right and power to govern while giving the Opposition and the people of the country the opportunity to check the Government. We will address this situation through outlining our views on critical provisions of the draft including:

a)Belongership
b) House of Assembly including its size (including committees), its functions and limitations and how it is made up (voting system)
c) Powers of the Governor vs. 2006 constitution
d) Public Finance and the Watchdog Institutions
e) Proposed constitutional Silence on trial by Jury
f) Constitutional amendments that would give greater authority and responsibility to the electorate, the Legislature and the Executive including referendum provisions and delegation of certain reserve powers.

Most observers to these talks including the international community, the UK Parliament, the TCI people, Caricom and our brothers and sisters in the other Overseas Territories are watching carefully to see if you continue to listen or whether they amount to a rubber stamping of a rejected proposal.

Turks & Caicos Progressive National Party Rejects Increased UK Powers in Proposed Constitution

*****

Opening statement to Constitutional talks by Leader of the Progressive National Party  (PNP)

Turks & Caicos Islands

by Clayton Greene (PNP)

June 16, 2011

Greetings,

Let me begin by saying good morning to you all and by thanking you Minister Bellingham for agreeing to see this delegation. We continue to be hopeful that this meeting would result in a constitution that the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands, whom I together with Mr. Parnell have the pleasure of representing, can feel protects them while at the same time provides for them the best opportunity to realize their hopes dreams and aspirations.

Ministers, ladies and gentle, the United Kingdom Government and the people of the TCI have been locked in a battle that is fueled by a deep seated mistrust on both sides. This mistrust has led to what we believe to be the deliberate alienation of able Turks and Caicos Islanders from the process of governance so much so that we have begun to question whether it is that Britain believes every Turks and Caicos Islander to be a crock that is incapable of forming a Government.

On the other had the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands are increasingly resentful of an Interim Administration whose actions not only lack transparency but are clouded in secrecy and are essentially non-participatory. We recognize that these characteristics are the antithesis of the democracy they claim to promote. We are concerned that despite our protestations we see no intervention of the British Government or the FCO.

What we have to do now is to rebuild this trust that has broken down. It requires that the United Kingdom Government agrees to meet the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands half way and accept that they bear some of the responsibility for the present circumstances.

Foreign Secretary Hague in his March 11 Ministerial Statement speaking for the British Government said and I quote “we are determined that the situation we have found in the Turks and Caicos Islands is not repeated, there or elsewhere [and] to make sure that the ‘right controls are put in place to ensure good governance..”

The Foreign Secretary must accept that the “situation”, whatever we determine it to be, was not one that the British Government “found”. Whatever the situation, it was allowed to grow and thrive under the watchful eye of a Governor who held ultimate responsibility for Good Governance. As early as October 2003 Minister Bill Rammell, in a memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, recognized that the UK Government had what he termed an “over-riding responsibility for good governance in the territories…” Minister Rammell went on to suggest that in some of the smaller territories there was a lack of institutional capacity and experience to cope well with the increasing demands on Government and further that the lack of developed civil society, strong legislature, and vibrant media in some Territories meant that many of the usual checks on the Executive can be weaker than normal.

Since 2003 the British Government has done nothing to improve institutional capacity or to provide the experience that they recognized was necessary if Government was to meet the demands of an increasingly complex society. Whitehall did nothing to develop civil society or to strengthen the legislature or to improve the media. What the British Government did was leave us on our own to fend for ourselves.

The United Kingdom Government having abdicated its responsibility cannot now cure that wrong by undertaking unilaterally to create the institutions that will help to secure Good Governance and create a more perfect Democracy and then simply invite an elected Government to work within it. We must be a part of this process and our constitution must reflect us. The institutions in this Country were created over centuries by those who came to recognize the need for checks and balances on the powers of the Executive. That continues for this Country to be a work in progress. Out of your political experiences you have over time put the institutions in place that would secure the protection of your people and the promotion of their desires.

The Constitution of the United States was put in place by men some of whom were Englishmen, who wanted to create for themselves a more perfect Union; who were seeking to resist some of the same oppressions at the hands of the

British that we in the TCI complain of today and who wanted to improve upon the system of governance that obtained in imperial Britain. In America they had begun to realize, although not fully, that all men were created equal and endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights.

The tenets of good governance and fiscal responsibility cannot be handed down but must be molded by the people of the Territory in which it operates. Minister Bellingham, the answer is elections now so that the people of the TCI can begin to build with you as equal partners a system that will serve the ideals of democracy, that will serve the principles of good governance, that will serve the people of the Turks and Caicos islands and that the people and Governments of the Turks and Caicos will serve. If we cannot have that then the relationship is not worth having.

I wish against this backdrop to be clear as to the positions that I will hold and defend over the next two days. I will defend the right of the people not to have their voting system interfered with save by referendum. As an addendum to this presentation you will find enumerated just some of the reasons why I reject the voting system that is proposed.

I will make the case for the Deputy Governor be a belonger without provisos.

I will reject the draft constitution to the extent that it purports to increase the powers of the Governor. That is retrogressive. The concerns that the British Administration have are not cured by increasing the powers of the Governor. We are required to learn from our mistakes. The people of the Turks and Caicos Islands have learned valuable lessons. The question is has the foreign and commonwealth office learned anything?

I do not and cannot support the notion that there need be some reference to belongership in the Constitution.

On these fundamental issues I am at one with the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands not least because these issues are so fundamental to the practice of our democracy that they ought not be tampered with save and except there is an expressed and clear will of the people that that should happen. Failing our agreement today there ought to be on these issues a referendum

Mr. Minister I am called upon at this moment in our history to guard, protect and promote the hopes dreams and aspirations of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands. My duty to my people is no less sacred than the identical duty that you have to the people of your Island home – that is to preserve the things that they hold dear and the things that they feel to be in their best interest. You carry out that duty today amid the increasing pressures of a large and sometimes seemingly imposing continent.

When you come to consider our requests and reflect upon our positions over the next two days we ask that you remember that small is relative and that our political system like your thrives when there exists organized and properly regulated political parties.

It now leaves me finally to thank you Mr. Minister and the members from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office my fellow Turks and Caicos Islanders who form part of this delegation and particularly my friend and counterpart Mr. Parnell for your kind attention. I wish for us all a productive two days.

*****

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF THE VOTING SYSTEM

PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION

The system proposes that 9 of the 15 members be elected on a compensation proportional basis on a national constituency while the remaining 6 members be elected from vastly unequal island constituencies. This is a hugely undemocratic prescription.

This type of proportional representation finds expression most closely in Germany and in New Zealand.

New Zealand has had it since 1996 and later this year they propose to hold a referendum on whether it will continue.

The chief features and disadvantages of the proposed system are as follows:

1. It is fundamentally undemocratic and in a small electorate as we are would give rise to rich corruption opportunities since the Party Lists and the ranking of individuals on that list will be governed by party managers.

2. The system although touted to be proportional in fact gives small unrepresentative, or special interest, parties hugely disproportional power in the House of Assembly. A small and unrepresentative party or indeed a group of non-aligned individuals could conceivably become something of a permanent feature in Government irrespective of which of the major parties secured the main voting allegiance. Under this system these small unrepresentative parties can have significant and undemocratic blocking or veto power making it very hard for the major party to achieve anything in government with even one of these smaller parties holding the balance of power. While this may happen under the first past the post it is a virtual certainty under proportional representation.

3. Proportional representation ushers in with virtual certainty circumstances in the House of Assembly where legislative action is blocked and where negotiations between the parties (again an opportunity for corruption) is necessary for anything to be achieved; the programme of no one party therefore determines the legislative outcome. It is not what the people may have voted for but what emerges from “behind closed doors” in inter-party negotiations with again a small party or parties exercising, almost always, vastly disproportionate influence, that matters.

4. It is hard to change the Government as the Lists naturally include the same individuals that enjoy the support of the Party Executive and the order of the names reflect the descending level of that support. This system frustrates or at least thwarts the will of the people.

5. The system is very complicated. Few understand it in any place where it has been adopted. Voting systems should be simple.

6. It is very hard to change any proportional system once it is adopted. This is so because the Party Executive and persons that have found their names onto the Party List quickly gain a vested interest in its continuance as there seats are virtually secured. Also empirical evidence suggest that an inertia sets in among the people who quickly become alienated from the political system as they see that elections in the main change nothing, and that real reform is next to impossible. It is a locked system.

7. The system results in pallid politics where there are few big changes and where the government doesn’t often change, and where reform is very difficult and where young and promising people get put off as far as entry into public live is concerned; they see it as pointless trying, as the system is locked and undemocratic, and in a small polity likely to be corrupt as well.

8. The British people have recently shown, in their overwhelming rejection of an Alternative Voting system, that they prefer direct selection, by the people, of their Members of Parliament. Why should we have any worse?

9. The voting by Island constituencies also produces massively unequal constituencies with the result that the majority of the people on Providenciales would be without effective representation.

Former Turks & Caicos Premier Condemns British 'Dictatorship,' Calls for Independence

*****

Statement by Michael Misick, former Premier of Turks & Caicos

Turks & Caicos - After losing the leadership contest within my own Progressive National Party (PNP) last year, I had decided to remain quiet and support the new leader Clayton Greene and allow him to tackle the issues at hand.

However, in the face of the complete destruction of my beloved country at the hands of the British government, Dictator Gordon Wetherell and the Turks and Caicos Islanders who sit on the two puppet bodies, the so-called Consultative Forum and the Advisory Council, I can no longer remain quiet.

First, let me put things in perspective for those who would blame me and my administration for the mess that the country is now in.

When the PNP took over the reins of government, the national budget was $90Million and the GDP was about $200 million. When we left office some six years later, the national budget was in excess of $250 million and GDP was over $700 million. It is an undeniable fact that we attracted and presided over unprecedented growth economically, politically and socially.

Using the income from the growth, we invested heavily in infrastructure like the causeway and road works in North, Middle and South Caicos. We invested in building a port in North Caicos, the National Stadium, the Downtown ball park in Providenciales. We also invested in road works and other public infrastructure in Grand Turk and Salt Cay.

We invested tens of millions of dollars modernizing our education system, extending and upgrading schools and providing scholarships and opportunities for higher learning for an unprecedented number of young people all throughout the Turks and Caicos Islands.

We invested in the health of the nation by making sure anyone that needed medical attention, received it, whether abroad or at home. We built two state-of-the-art hospitals.

We built institutions like TCI New Media, the Airports and Civil Aviation Authority and the National Health Insurance Board.

Not only did we balance our budget six years in a row, we had a surplus budget six years in a row.

We increased the pay for civil servants and the police by nearly 50 percent.

We hired additional civil servants and government workers in all of the Islands to ensure delivery of government services to all.

We were never late with, or missed, payments to government workers.

People who had done business with the government were paid, and paid on time.

We attracted billions of dollars in foreign investments. Construction was booming and everyone was working.

Belongers were being empowered through land grants and other business opportunities.

These are only but a few reminders of where we came from before the UK’s unnecessary invasion of our country.

Now, almost three years later, unemployment is almost at 30 percent, there is no investment taking place, crime is at a all-time high, Civil Servants are being laid off left, right and centre, there is a climate of fear, freedom of speech is being suppressed and journalists are being intimidated for speaking out.

In all of this, the British and its Dictatorship government still will not take responsibility for their actions that have killed the buzz that the PNP created and killed our economy. They are still blaming past governments, when the truth is that they have being in power for three unsuccessful, destructive and chaotic years.

Just like US P resident Barack Obama has to now take responsibility for the wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq and the failing US economy, the British has to take responsibility for the depression that they have caused in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

This Interim Administration that is being led by Gordon Wetherell and includes the Advisory Council and the Consultative Forum, is the worst government that the Turks and Caicos Islands has ever seen. This Interim Government has been such a spectacular failure, that even those who called for them to come to the Turks and Caicos Islands, are now angry and disappointed with them, crying out for them to leave and are prepared to expel them from this beautiful by nature country.

It was never this bad; not even under the PDM. Even the PDM was a better government than this interim administration.

To add insult to injury, after borrowing $260 million that our children will have to pay back, they have mismanaged that money so much that the first time in the history of our islands, Provo Power Company (PPC) was forced to turn off almost all of government offices electricity because of lack of payment.

It’s a crying shame!! That would have never happened under my watch as leader of the PNP, neither would it have happened under the PDM.

Ultimately this is our country. No English man can run our country better than us. No English can care for our people the young and the old like we do. Their interest is in getting a career promotion at our expense.

This brings me to the finally matter that I would like to address that is constitutional changes.

My people of the Turks and Caicos Islands, let’s stop pussy-footing around while the rest of the world is passing us by. Our future does not lie with Britain. Let us stop wasting time and warming up harmony.

Let's seek our independence NOW!!

For those who long to go back to the 2006 Constitution, I say to you as the person who led the team that negotiated it, that the 2006 constitution was good for that time. It’s almost six years later, and so we need a more advance constitution than that.

The British has made a mockery of this process. First by suspending the Constitution, secondly by appointing an incompetent person to carry out an exercise that should have been done by a panel of distinguished persons from within our country; and now lastly by inviting people other than those parties that truly represent the population to a fruitless talk in London.

We should demand the same respect as the British people. Just like the British people, only a few short months ago, had a referendum on whether to change their voting system, we the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands should have a referendum first on whether we want to remain a British colony, and secondly, on any proposed Constitution.

Only through a referendum can the true will of the people be established.

Finally, I say to my countrymen, there has been too much in-fighting. While we fight among ourselves the gains that were made by both political parties are being lost.

The British administration is systematically transferring the wealth of our country into the hands of a few British elite.

It’s time for us to stand up and fight back because we have everything to lose.

Let's conquer our fears. Let's us embrace the democratic winds that are blowing around the world. Let's say and show to the world that the British are hypocrites. They cannot speak with a moral voice on democracy in Libya or Syria when they have taken away our right to choose a government with no date or deadline for elections.

When here in the Turks and Caicos Islands, the very thing America when to war for their independence over, Taxation Without Representation, is happening 300 years later again, but now to us.

We must call on president Obama the leader of the free world to use his influence with the British to intervene on our behalf.

President Obama made a great speech at the British parliament about freedom and democracy for Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Libya but what about us in the Turks and Caicos Islands which is only 500 miles off America’s door step. What about us?

May God bless us and may He bless our beloved home land!

Cayman Civil Society Supports Self-Determination

*****

CARIBBEAN REGIONAL SEMINAR ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR THE ERADICATION OF COLONIALISM:

GOALS AND EXPECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Kingstown, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

31 May to 2 June 2011

A Cayman Islands’ Civil Society Perspective

Presented by:

Wil Pineau, CCE Cayman Islands Non-Governmental Organizations Constitutional Working Group

This presentation has been prepared and is supported by the following organizations:

• Cayman Islands Chamber of Commerce (CICOC)

• Concerned Citizens Group (CCG)

• People for Referendum (PFR)

Introduction

Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates of the Special Committee on Decolonization and representatives from the United Nation’s (UN) Secretariat’s office, thank you for inviting the Cayman Islands Chamber of Commerce (CICOC), the coordinating organization for the Cayman Islands Non-Governmental Organizations Constitutional Working Group (NGO Working Group), to deliver a presentation at this regional seminar.

This presentation is a collaborative effort and is supported by the following Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): CICOC, People for Referendum (PFR) and the Concerned Citizens Group (CCG).

Collectively, these three diverse NGOs remain committed to working with the C24, Her Majesty’s Government, elected officials in the Cayman Islands, regional experts and representatives from other Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) to educate the people about their inalienable human right to self determination as defined by Article 73 of the UN Charter.

Although, admittedly, we are all familiar with Article 73, because what it says is so important, I crave your indulgence as I quote its contents at this time:-

"Article 73:


Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:


a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;


b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;


c. to further international peace and security;


d. to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article; and


e. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply."

The NGOs have been working together for more than a decade making submissions to the UN Special Committee on Decolonization and our administering Power, the UK, calling for the need for proper and full education of the UN options in order to achieve the right and free exercise of self-determination. Representatives from the group have demonstrated their commitment to this effort by attending and delivering presentations at three regional conferences in Anguilla (2003), Canouan (2005), St. Kitts and Nevis (2009) and now St. Vincent (2011) and travelling to UN headquarters in New York City to address the UN’s Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) in June 2003, October 2003 and June 2004.

As Secretary of the NGO Working Group, I am accompanied by Mr. James O’Neill, President of the CICOC and have been asked by the Group to deliver this presentation. Each of these diverse organizations working together have contributed significantly to the debate and public discussion on governance matters for more than a decade.

CICOC, established in 1965, represents the interests of 735 businesses and associations that employ 18,159 workers out of a total population of 54,000. Its objective is to support, promote and protect the interests of the membership and the public welfare of the Cayman Islands and has been actively involved in the constitutional review process for more than three decades.

PFR established in 2002 seeks to foster the development of participatory democracy through the use of voter initiated binding referendums.

CCG was activated in the 1990s (prior to and during the time of formulation of Vision 2008) for the purpose of keeping abreast of district, national and international issues impacting on the short and long term social and economic development of the Cayman Islands. The group is made up of a cross-section of Caymanians and residents (including retirees) whose careers range from skilled and technical to the hospitality and service industries to businesspersons and professionals. From the beginning, CCG has not only been championing issues such as rights-of-way, beach accesses, waterways and environmental issues but has also been actively presenting its views and suggested amendments to various proposed laws as well as in relation to the lengthy constitutional review process culminating in the current 2009 Constitution.

The CICOC was invited by the Cayman Islands Government to participate on the negotiating team that drafted the new constitution that was approved by voters during the Islands’ first national referendum in 2009.

Historical decolonization background

As we enter the third international decade for the eradication of colonialism it is only appropriate to reflect and to share the progress that has been achieved and the challenges that we have faced in our quest to educate the people of Cayman Islands on the UN self-determination options. We also congratulate the C24 on declaring a third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism as we understood there was some question about this being done. There is certainly much that our NGO Working Group has learned that we can share with this esteemed group.

The first C24 Caribbean regional seminar that we attended was in Anguilla in 2003. The Anguilla seminar was declared historic because it was the first seminar to be held in a UK Overseas Territory and also the first to be attended by a representative from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for many years.

During the Anguilla seminar, Mrs. Sophia-Ann Harris, then President-Elect of the CICOC, surprised many delegates when she explained that until the CICOC invited then C24 Chair Ambassador Earl Huntley to visit Grand Cayman in April 2003, Caymanians were generally unaware of the three UN options for self-determination and the corresponding international obligations of the administering Power.

At the Anguilla seminar Ambassador Huntley announced an action plan for the C24 to ensure that the decade of 2001 to 2010 the UN’s objective to eradicate colonialism would be achieved. However, he recognized that this could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the administering Powers and the NSGTs respective governments.

Speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, Mr. Roy Osbourne, then Deputy Head of the Overseas Territories Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) assured delegates

“…that the UK Government would permit the UN Special Committee to carry out public education programmes in the OTs regarding the options specified under the UN Charter.”

He confirmed the UK’s undertaking to become engaged in the C24 action plan. Following the seminar, however, the UK reversed its position and declared that free association was not on offer.

In a written address on behalf of the Cayman Islands Government, the Hon. W. McKeeva Bush, OBE, JP, the then Leader of Government Business and Cayman’s current Premier, who also attended the seminar, said:

“I would like it understood that the Cayman Islands wishes to fully understand and be given access to the full range of options for self-determination. We look forward to learning more from the United Nations and from all of you gathered here… We would also like to indicate our ongoing willingness to share our experiences as we progress towards that form of self-determination that complies with the UN Charter while safeguarding the interests of the people of the Cayman Islands.”

In June 2003 a delegation from the NGO Working Group travelled to the UN to address the C24. The response from the C24 to the presentations was positive and provided the NGO representatives with hope and encouragement. The NGO representatives (Mrs. Sophia Ann Harris and myself from the CICOC, Mrs. Sandra Catron from PFR and Ms. Alice Mae Coe from CCG) were able to share information about constitutional issues in the Cayman Islands and to inform the C24 about the lack of progress the UK had made with educating our local people about UN Resolutions 1514 (XV), 1541 (XV) and 2625.

The C24 action plan that was announced by the then Chair Mr. Huntley, at the historic regional seminar in Anguilla in May 2003, was unanimously approved by the C24 members at that meeting.

At the October 2003 meeting of the UN’s Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) the NGO Constitutional Working Group presented a paper on behalf of the NGOs. The C24 action plan was ratified by the Fourth Committee at that meeting.

In June 2004, at the C24’s meeting, NGO representatives, which included Pastor Al Ebanks from the Cayman Ministers Association (CMA) and then co-chair of the NGO Working Group, Mr. Dennie Warren Jr. from the PFR and Mrs. Alice Mae Coe from the CCG travelled to New York City to present a petition. The group challenged the UN’s C24 to implement its action plan and requested that the C24 includes the Cayman Islands on its list of visiting missions for the year.

The group wrote to the elected Government at the time requesting them to invite the UN’s C24 to visit the Cayman Islands. Regretfully, we never received a reply.

Regrettably, the Cayman Islands Government refused to allow the C24 to convene this 2011 seminar in the Cayman Islands. The NGO Working Group believes that our people have lost a wonderful opportunity to learn about the work of the C24 in protecting their interests as regards to options available regarding the governance relationship with our administering Power.

The UK/OT experience

More than eight years have passed since the historic first NSGT seminar in Anguilla and other annual seminars. Since then the people of the Cayman Islands, and indeed other UK OTs, continue in their efforts to deal with the administering Power that asserts unilateral and total authority over the Territories. The administering Power remains empowered to amend and enact external legislation including the constitutions (or as some would refer it as “the administration document”) through Orders-in-Council which the UK calls their “nuclear option”. The UK professes to advocate constitutional modernization yet they are prohibiting further examination and education of the rights to self-determination options available under UN Charter Article 73, Resolution and Affirmations reinforced by their attempts to de-list the Cayman Islands and other OTs as NSGTs altogether.

There continues to be a need for greater active involvement by the peoples of the NSGTs in the constitutional consultation process. Traditionally, the preferred path to progress within the terms of the UN resolution for the self determination agenda is to work with the elected governments and the administering Power. We believe that UN guidelines for self-determination are as applicable today as when they were first drafted.

Whilst we fully support this course of action as one of the active civil society participants in the recent constitutional negotiations, we ask the Special Committee to also consider engaging the NGOs more actively in the process of preparing our people to make an educated choice regarding future constitutional modernization and our right to self-determination.

Civil society groups like ours are trying to work with the C24 to achieve its stated goal of eliminating colonialism. It is therefore sad to realize that there has been absolutely no financial assistance or assistance in kind offered to the NGOs in the Cayman Islands by the UN or the UK over the past eight years and unless our NGOs made personal and organizational financial commitments and sacrifices to attend previous seminars then there would have been no representation from civil society in the Cayman Islands. We believe this demonstrates our commitment to the education process.

In May 2009 at the Caribbean Regional seminar in St. Kitts and Nevis, Mrs. Sophia-Ann Harris, a past President of the CICOC and co-chair of the NGO Constitutional Working Group, speaking personally as an invited expert, presented a paper entitled “Challenges and Opportunities in the Process of Decolonization of the Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Caribbean Region: The Cayman Experience”.

Mrs. Harris expressed a lack of sufficient public education on constitutional issues leading up to the referendum vote for a new draft Constitution in 2009 and raised specific concerns about the inclusion of a Bill of Rights (BOR) in the Constitution without proper education:

“There has been no discussion of the dangers or merits of having a Bill of Rights enshrined in the constitution. There has been no discussion as to the overall policies, laws or current international obligations of the Islands that will be affected by such a BOR and the possible impact, costs and potential liabilities resulting there from… It is clear that if we have not got this right, this could prove to be the most costly experiment the Cayman Islands would have ever engaged in yet!”

Over the years the United Kingdom has made it clear to the Cayman Islands that constitutional modernization is necessary for all OTs but what really constitutes “constitutional modernization” and the “right to self-determination” within the narrow confining UK definition, remains unclear for the residents who live in the OTs.

The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, in debating their Overseas Territories report in Westminster Hall in April 2009, the first such report completed in a decade, identified severe lapses in “good governance”, a constitutionally assigned responsibility by the FCO. The most current and topical example is the ongoing situation in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) which has resulted in the UK suspending its 2006 Constitution

The UK has now drawn up a new draft constitution for the TCI which it is seeking to put in place by July of this year. The draft has been rejected by the TCI people who have called for a referendum on the document. This highlights the failure of the Westminster monarchial parliamentary governance system which does not have separation of powers. Good governance capacity building will require open, participatory and democratic constitutional governance with separation of powers following the rule of law.

In his contribution to the debate, Sir John Stanley, Member of the UK Parliament for Tonbridge and Malling and a Member of the House of Commons Select Committee for Foreign Affairs, referring to the reports submitted by the FCO regarding the situation in the TCI stated:

“… the Foreign Office seemed to be so oblivious for so long as to what was happening... The Committee was in an extraordinary position: we received a lavender-scented memorandum from the Foreign Office at the same time as we were being bombarded with distinctly malodorous memorandums from the Turks and Caicos Islands across the Atlantic.


Only one of two conclusions can be drawn from such a situation. If one were cynical—I am not—one could say that the Foreign Office was out to pull the wool over the Committee’s eyes, to mislead the Committee. I do not believe that that is the way in which present Ministers or their officials would wish to conduct themselves before the Foreign Affairs Committee. If one takes the view that the Foreign Office was not trying to pull the wool, I am afraid that only one other conclusion can be drawn: the Foreign Office was asleep on the job, or most certainly half asleep, and it simply had not woken up to what was happening on the Turks and Caicos Islands.”

The NGO Working Group is also aware that every year the UK makes submissions that the Cayman Islands should be removed from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories (“NSGT”). We too have in the past made submissions to the UN to clarify that this is by no means the case; our governance system is still that of a Colonial Administered Governance system in which there are no “devolved powers” as stated in the UK statement to the UN in March 2009.

The Cayman Experience

In November 2009, the Cayman Islands Constitution Order came into effect.

Earlier in 2009, the UN requested the UK to update the UN on the status of their territorial relations and in the response they stated:

“The overwhelming majority of decisions in the United Kingdom’s Overseas Territories are taken by the Territory Governments in exercise of devolved powers. There is no wish on the United Kingdom’s part to micromanage its relationship with the Overseas Territories.”

This statement is not factual; our “modernized” Constitution contains no “devolved powers”.

Examples of the Administrative Power’s absolute unilateral power are contained in the Cayman Islands Constitutional Order 2009, Section 125 which states “there is reserved to her Majesty full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Cayman Islands.” and in Section 81 the Governor’s reserve power to unilaterally enact legislation.

Some responsibilities have been delegated by the UK similar to the previous constitution with the ultimate power resting with the administering Power. New provisions include the creation of a National Security Council, Director of Public Prosecutions, People-initiated referendums, a Bill of Rights, a Preamble, Human Rights Commission, Commission for Standards in Public Life, Judicial and Legal Services Commission, Constitutional Commission and Advisory District Councils. Provisions formalizing the offices of the Complaints Commissioner, Information Commissioner and the Auditor General and protecting their independence have been included. Most of these provisions are similar in form and function as to the constitutions in the other UK OTs with the noteworthy exception of the establishment of a Constitutional Commission, the first body of its kind to obtain constitutional recognition among the UK OTs.

The 1972 Constitution included that an Order in Council required the approval of the Privy Council, whereas the 2009 Constitution in effect gives the UK Prime Minister the power, without any other governance body in the UK, to directly exercise his or her power as they so wish to totally control the governance of the Cayman Islands and any other UK Overseas Territory. Even the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee recognizes the need to abolish the “medieval” Order in Council.

Mr. Ian Hendry and Ms. Susan Dickson, (the UK’s advisors at the constitutional modernization talks in the Cayman Islands and other OT’s) in their recent book entitled British Overseas Territories Law said that the UK made it clear to the Decolonization Committee in 2008 that it:

“…considers the existence of the Committee of 24 and the list of Non-self –Governing-Territories to be outdated and remains of the view that none of its overseas territories should remain on the list.”

Mr. Steve McField, the Honorary Representative for the Cayman Islands Government speaking at the Pacific Regional Seminar in Noumea, New Caledonia in 2010 said that there were changes which were considered “advancements”, all of these however only “delegated” changes which can always be reversed, as in the case of the TCI. There are no devolved powers in the new Cayman Islands Constitution; therefore our colonial status with our administering Power remains exactly the same.

We do not regard the introduction of a new administrative arrangement between the administering Power and her territory as a sincere attempt to advance the progress towards self-determination. During the constitutional discussions, the UK made it clear that specific conditions had to be met and lines could not be crossed otherwise the administering Power would not agree to a new constitution for the Cayman Islands.

So it seems that “self-determination” is at an impasse for the Cayman Islands and other OTs as far as the UK is concerned.

The UN Position

In February 2011, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, in his remarks to the opening at UN Headquarters of the session of the Special Committee on Decolonization, emphasized that the completion of the process of decolonization will require the concerted efforts of all concerned: first and foremost, the Special Committee, the administering Powers and the peoples in the NSGTs. Dialogue aimed at improving cooperation between the Special Committee and the administering Powers continues to be of utmost importance.

The NGOs agree with the UN Secretary General and support the Declaration by the General Assembly in 1960 that affirmed the right of all people to self-determination and proclaimed that colonialism should be brought to a speedy and unconditional end. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, contravenes the UN Charter and impedes the promotion of world peace and cooperation.

The Special Committee, which was set up two years after the adoption of the Declaration, has a crucial role to play as the intergovernmental body exclusively devoted to advancing the UN decolonization agenda. It could assess its past work and achievements to chart a way forward, together with the administering Powers, for the ultimate benefit of the peoples of the Territories, Mr. Ban added.

At the time of the UN’s establishment in 1945, 750 million people – almost one-third of the global population – lived in NSGTs, compared to fewer than 2 million at present. “Today, 16 NSGTs remain on the list, awaiting constructive, results-oriented initiatives. On a case-by-case basis, those Territories have to be given the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination in order to take the interests of their peoples fully into account. Colonial situations are completely outdated and must be addressed with renewed vigor and creativity,” Mr. Ban concluded.

A good example of how a compliant administrative Power should act is New Zealand. They are exemplary as an administrative Power in the way that they administer their OTs.

On the other hand the UK was a drafter of the UN Charter Article at the end of WWII. When they and others were non-compliant with the letter and intent of Article 73 the UN General Assembly in December 1959 recognized that the decolonization process had to be more structured in the path to self-determination of non NSGTs. The UK was a member of the original committee which in affect was the original C6 and is now the C24.

The UK drafted the current decolonization provisions and the committee unanimously recommended it to the fourth committee. However, for reasons unknown to us, the UK decided to abstain from the vote for their motion.

“Constitutional modernization” is not in itself a replacement or move away from colonization although it is often portrayed as a legitimate and acceptable means of decolonization.

Mr. Hendry and Ms. Dickson state in their recent book:

“The United Kingdom’s relationship with its territories is based on the principle of self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations [Articles 1.2 & 55]. Early on the United Kingdom regarded the principle as enunciated in the Charter as a ‘political principle’ with a ‘strong moral force’ only. [UNGA 1955]… The UK did not regard these Principles [Resolution 1541 (XV)] as legally binding and abstained from voting on this resolution….The UK is of the view that the guiding principles for its relationship with its overseas territories are to be found in the United Nations Charter itself, which requires the administering Power to take due account of the political aspirations of the people of its territories, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of development. [UNGA Oct. 2009]. These principles, to which the UK attaches the utmost importance, are largely ignored by the Resolution 1541 (XV)].” [p. 251-252 H&D]

As Dr. Carlyle Corbin stated in his presentation at the Caribbean Regional Conference in St. Kitts and Nevis in 2009:

“The adoption of resolutions and the de-listing from UN review does not constitute success in and of itself. It is the achievement of full self-government by the peoples of the territories which is the real barometer of success. De-listing should not be considered the goal, but rather a result of the achievement of full-self-government, and only after certification by the international community that full self-government with political equality has been realized.”

And that is why we are here today.
All of the provisions for self-determination were relevant then and they are still relevant now.

Recommendations & Goals

So what is the way forward as we enter the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism?
Some recommendations the Special Committee may wish to consider:

• Convene future regional seminars only in the NSGTs with public access including the press to all deliberations in keeping with the protocols already in practice by the C24 and the Fourth Committee meetings;

• Work with the Government and Civil Society groups in the NSGTs to provide governance education resources and funding;

• Prepare educational materials on the self-determination options;

• Implement the actions called for in the plan of action adopted at the seminar in 2003, the later plan of action adopted for the second IDEC or develop one for the third decade consistent with the proposal made by an eminent Caribbean expert at the 2010 seminar in Caledonia - one that meets the current needs;

• Work with regional organizations eg. CARICOM towards governance and capacity building of the NSGTs;

• Find ways to develop governance and capacity building with or without the administering Powers cooperation and involvement;

• Open/expand access of the NSGTs to UN programmes, systems and services, specifically in the principles embodies in Resolution 2625 (Declaration of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations);

• Input for the annual Working Paper must be received, in addition to the administering Power, the Civil Society and local Government in each of the NSGTs;

• Establish a minimum criteria set for the level of education to be conducted in an NSGT before self-determination can be accomplished;

• Establish governance information sources and reference systems within the UN Secretariat to share and educate on the services that the Secretariat should be providing to the peoples of the NSGTs;

• Improve and increase dialogue between the C24 and Civil Society in the OTs that would assist with the development of participatory democracy. At present there is minimal communication between the C24 and civil society in the Cayman Islands. Communication usually occur leading up to the regional seminars. Correspondence submitted to the UN Secretariat in most instances remains unanswered;

*Evaluate the successful compliance of New Zealand with the decolonization resolutions as a best practice;

• Provide capacity building and support to NGOs and other institutions involved in the self-determination process in the NSGTs;

• Identify conference hosted by the administering Powers addressing governance and constitutional matters and encourage attendance by Special Committee members.

Education must continue to be at the epicenter of all activities. Such education must of course clarify to the people of the Cayman Islands that the expression “self-determination” is not a synonym for the word “independence” – although “independence” is numbered amongst the options to be available to NSGTs.

There has been a long standing call for the administering Power in cooperation with the territorial governments and appropriate bodies of the UN system to develop political education programmes for the territories in order to foster an awareness among the people of their right to self-determination in conformity with the legitimate political status based on the principles clearly defined in General Assembly Resolution 1541 and other relevant resolutions and decisions.

An informed and enlightened civil society will ensure that informed choices are made as they make decisions towards self-determination.
 
*****
 
Se also:  http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2009/12/cayman-islands-contemplates-political.html

U.S. President Pledges Support for Puerto Rico political status resolution

*****

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

June 14, 2011

Remarks by U.S. President in San Juan, Puerto Rico

Luis Muñoz Marin International Airport
San Juan, Puerto Rico

11:43 A.M. AST

     THE PRESIDENT:  Buenas tardes!  (Applause.)  It is good to be back in Puerto Rico.  (Applause.)  It is great to see so many familiar faces, so many advocates for the island.  First of all, I want to acknowledge Congressman Pierluisi is here.  Where is he?  Right over there.  (Applause.)  My great friend, Andres Lopez.  (Applause.)  Franciso Pavia.  (Applause.)  Senator Bhatia.  (Applause.)  Governor Fortuno.  (Applause.)  And I know that we’ve got some former governors here today, along with leaders of local parties, and of the House and the Senate.

I am so grateful for the unbelievable reception.  As you know, the last President to come to San Juan and address the people of Puerto Rico was John F. Kennedy, nearly 50 years ago.  (Applause.)  Now, at the time, I was about four months old -- (laughter) -- so my memory of this visit is a little hazy.  What I do remember is that when I came here to campaign, I promised that I would return as President of the United States.  (Applause.)  And although my hair is a little grayer -- (applause) -- than during my first visit, I am glad to be able to keep that promise to the people of Puerto Rico.  (Applause.)

But this is only one part of my commitment to families here on the island.  Because when I ran for President, I promised to include Puerto Rico not just on my itinerary, but also in my vision of where our country needs to go.  And I am proud to say that we’ve kept that promise, too.

First of all, we’ve addressed the question of political status.  In March, a report from our presidential task force on Puerto Rican status provided a meaningful way forward on this question so that the residents of the island can determine their own future.  And when the people of Puerto Rico make a clear decision, my administration will stand by you.  (Applause.)

I also know that there are plenty of other issues that the island is facing.  When President Kennedy was here, he addressed the relationship between Washington and San Juan, and he also spoke about tackling what he called, “the difficult problems of education and housing and employment.”

In that same spirit, we’ve been trying to make sure that every family on the island can find work and make a living and provide for their children.  That’s why our economic plan and our health care reform included help for Puerto Rico.  (Applause.)

That’s why we’re increasing access to broadband and investing in education.  That's why we’re helping to grow local tourism and health care and clean-energy industries.  We’re giving Puerto Ricans the tools they need to build their own economic futures.
 
And this is how it should be.  Because every day, Boricuas help write the American story.  (Applause.)  Puerto Rican artists contribute to our culture -- and by the way, I don't know if you noticed, but Marc Anthony decided to show up here today.  (Applause.)  Puerto Rican entrepreneurs create American jobs.  Even in the NBA finals, J.J. Barea inspired all of us -- (applause) -- with those drives to the hoop.  That guy can play.  (Applause.)  Next time I’m down here I’m going to have to -- next time I’m here, I’m going to have to play some hoops.  (Applause.)

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge all the Puerto Rican men and women who serve in our country’s uniform.  (Applause.)  Give it up for our veterans.   Thank you.  (Applause.)
One of those veterans is Juan Castillo.  Juan fought in World War II, and he fought in the Korean War.  Today, he’s two months away from his 101st birthday.  (Applause.)

Juan’s legacy is carried on by Puerto Ricans in Iraq and Afghanistan; men and women like Chief Master Sergeant Ramon Colon-Lopez, of the United States Air Force.  In 2004, Ramon’s team was going after a high-value target in Afghanistan.  His helicopter was seriously damaged by hostile fire.  In the thick of battle, he didn’t know how large the force that he was up against.  But he pressed on anyway, and his team killed or captured 12 enemy fighters.  Because of his bravery, he was the first Hispanic American to be awarded the Air Force Combat Action Medal.  (Applause.)

And I tell this story because for decades, Puerto Ricans like Juan and Ramon have put themselves in harm’s way for a simple reason:  They want to protect the country that they love.  Their willingness to serve, their willingness to sacrifice, is as American as apple pie –- or as Arroz con Gandules.  (Applause.)  The aspirations and the struggles on this island mirror those across America.

So I know that today a lot of folks are asking some of the same questions here on the island as they’re asking in Indiana or California or in Texas:  How do I make sure my kids get the kind of education that they need?  How can I put away a little money for retirement?  How can I fill up my gas tank?  How can I pay the bills?

Everywhere I go, I see families facing challenges like these, but they’re facing them with resolve and determination.  You know, these problems didn’t develop overnight here in Puerto Rico or anywhere else, but that means we’re not going to solve them overnight.  But, day by day, step by step, we will solve them.

We are going to be able to improve our education system here in Puerto Rico and all across America.  (Applause.)  We are making strides to improve our health care system here in Puerto Rico and all across America.  (Applause.)  We are going to put people back to work here in Puerto Rico and all across America.  (Applause.)

Maybe some of you remember that when I was here in 2008, I spoke in front of the Cuartel de Ballaja, a site that had been home to so many chapters of Puerto Rican history.  Today, Puerto Rican workers are writing the next chapter by turning the building into a model of energy efficiency.  They’re making HVAC systems more efficient.  They’re putting on a green roof.  They’re installing 720 photovoltaic panels.  When they’re done, it’s estimated that the energy savings will be 57 percent.  And Puerto Rico will have taken one more step towards creating a clean energy economy.

Those are the kinds of steps it will take for Puerto Rico to win the future and for America to win the future.  (Applause.)  That’s what we do in this country.  With each passing decade, with each new challenge, we reinvent ourselves.  We find new ways to solve our problems.  We push forward.

And we do so in a way that gives every one of our people a shot at the dream that we all share -– the dream that if you’re willing to work hard and take responsibility, you can build a better life for your family.  You can find a job that’s secure, provides decent wages, provides for your children, provides for your retirement.  That’s what people are hoping for, and it’s not too much to ask.

Puerto Rico, I don’t need to tell you that we’re not there yet.  We’re not where we need to be.  But in these challenging times, people on this island don’t quit.  We don’t turn back.  (Applause.)  People in America don’t quit.  We don’t turn back.  We place our bets on entrepreneurs and on workers and on our families.  We understand that there is strength in our diversity.  We renew the American Dream.  We have done it before.  We will do it again.

Muchas gracias.  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  Thank you, Puerto Rico.  (Applause.)


Also see:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/14/president-obama-visits-puerto-rico

FRANCE TIGHTENS UNSTABLE TAHITI ELECTORAL SYSTEM

*****

‘No confidence’ motions will need 60 percent majority

Radio New Zealand

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (RNZI, June 1, 2011) - The French Senate has approved a new electoral system for French Polynesia in a bid to end the territory’s political instability.The vote follows a proposal by the overseas territories minister, Marie-Luce Penchard, and is the fourth change in eight years decided by Paris.

The new proportional system will again provide for two rounds of voting, with lists needing the support of at least 12.5 percent of the votes to make it to the second round.

The winning list in the second round will get a third of all seats in the 57-member assembly as a bonus, while the remainder will be distributed according to the lists’ relative strength.

The assembly will then elect a president and a government of up to 10 ministers for a five-year term.

Under the new system, a motion of no confidence will only succeed if it has the support of at least 60 percent of the assembly.

The reform will now be debated by the French National Assembly. The last change of government in Tahiti took place two months ago.

Turks & Caicos Leaders Prepare for London Talks

*****

Team TCI prepares for eleventh hour constitution talks

Turks and Caicos Weekly News

By Gemma Handy

 
MEMBERS of the TCI delegation heading to London this month are gearing up for eleventh hour talks with Britain over constitutional overhaul. For some, it will be a last ditch attempt to persuade the UK to alter its stance on some of the draft document’s most contentious prescripts.
 
The seven-strong team – revealed in its entirety on Wednesday – will meet with Overseas Territories Minister Henry Bellingham on June 15 and 16. Belongership bestowal, voting eligibility and the meaty powers assigned to the Governor continue to attract the bulk of the controversy.
 
The Weekly News caught up with group members ahead of the momentous role they will play in helping redefine the country’s supreme laws.The team comprises PNP leader Clayton Greene, PDM leader Douglas Parnell, consultative forum chair Lillian Misick, advisory council member Doreen Quelch-Missick, pastor Bradley Handfield, leader of the All Party Constitution Commission Wendal Swann, and Youth Ambassador Trevon Farrington.The cost of the trip is being paid for by the TCI Government.
 
Mr Parnell is calling on all members of the delegation to come together at public round tables next week to establish common ground.“We believe that this is a pivotal and important moment in our history and it is incumbent upon all of us, as a people, that the views of those heading to London are the views that reflect the voice of the people and what is in the best interest of the Turks and Caicos Islands,” he said.
 
He continued that it was vital to “thrash out commonalities”, outline members’ individual viewpoints and allow the public to voice any concerns they may have.Mr Parnell said other areas of angst in the draft constitution included sparse provisions to hold the Governor to account, along with measures to oversee public finances.
 
“Top of the list also is integrity in public office. We want to make sure the new constitution gives the Government of the day the opportunity to govern – and the Opposition and the people of the country the opportunity to check the Government.”
 
Mr Parnell added that the PDM would be taking an additional party delegation to London too. Pastor Handfield said he supported most of the provisions in the draft constitution.“There are just a few I think we need to reconsider. Giving the Governor so much power is the main one I have issue with.”If the draft document is rubber-stamped, the Governor would retain the right to veto new legislation and override Cabinet decisions. A new provision would also entitle him to enact a Bill against the wishes of elected Parliamentarians, as long as he has backing from the Secretary of State. In addition, he would have the final say in appointing most of the members of the Public Service Commission and other officials.
 
The pastor said he believed the forthcoming discussions would “cinch the deal” on the definitive document.“I think the British have been listening all along, it’s just that we have not been articulating ourselves in a manner, up until recently, for anybody to listen to us.”He said last month’s public pow-wow at the Community Fellowship Centre was the first time such a large meeting had been allowed to continue peacefully and without interruption.“The team that came here listened and people were saying the things they thought.“I think the meeting in London will cinch the deal on what will happen with our constitution.“I think we will get the constitution that God wants us to have for the salvation and redemption of our country.
 
”Pastor Handfield added that he felt the delegation’s make-up had been chosen wisely.Mrs. Quelch-Missick, who is also Human Rights Commissioner, said it was a “privilege” to be part of the team.“We are at a crucial stage in our country’s history and I fully support that, as a people, we must be engaged in any and all talks on the restructuring of our constitution. “I am confident that the team, during the negotiations, will seek a common ground for the betterment of our people, taking into account the views of all people, not just the voices of some.”
 
She added: “As a woman, I see this as a positive step in the right direction towards the advancement of women in our country; our women should feel a sense of pride. Finally our women are being given an opportunity to represent our country at the highest level of decision-making.
 
”Mr Greene previously welcomed the chance to talk face-to-face with Mr Bellingham.“I think any time politicians get to sit down with politicians in London it’s a good thing.”The PNP leader said it was an opportunity to represent the views of ordinary Islanders.“The country must come together on certain basic points and reinforce the positions of the people.
 
”Youth Ambassador Mr Farrington said he believed some amendments needed to be made to the draft constitution but declined to comment further.Lillian Misick and Mr Swann could not be reached for comment. Last summer, Mr Swann told the UN’s Committee on Decolonisation that indigenous Islanders were being sidelined in Britain’s reform process.He declared it to be akin to recolonisation and dubbed the London-led consultations, headed by Kate Sullivan, a “sham”.

Univ. of Guam Signs Cooperation Agreement with Pacific Community

*****

UOG Signs MOA with Secretariat of the Pacific Community

UOG President Robert A. Underwood shakes hands with Amena V Yauvoli, manager of the Secretariat of the Pacific CommunityNorth Pacific Regional Office, after the signing of the memorandum of agreement on May 6, 2011.


On May 6, University of Guam President Robert A. Underwood signed a memorandum of agreement with the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) to maximize the impact and outcomes of research and outreach projects produced by both organizations in the broad areas of scientific research, socio-economic development, and health.

“This opens a new level of collaboration with scientists throughout the South Pacific,” said Underwood. “Instead of approaching institutions one by one, we can network with all the institutions and organizations within the SPC framework on issues like island sustainability, renewable energy, population, agriculture and the environment.”

SPC is a Pacific-based, international intergovernmental organization established by treaty under the Canberra Agreement on 6 February 1947. It has 26 members, comprising 22 Pacific Island countries and territories and four metropolitan members, Australia, France, New Zealand and the United States of America. These members govern and guide SPC in its work towards achieving a secure and prosperous Pacific region with healthy and well-educated people who are able to manage their resources according to environmentally and socially sustainable principles. SPC’s headquarters is in Noumea, New Caledonia. It also has regional offices in Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, and project offices throughout the Pacific region. (OTR Note: Guam is also a member of the Pacific Community).

“The benefits and outcomes gained by working together are far greater than those possible through our individual efforts,” added Underwood.

SPC and UOG have together identified eight themes on which to focus collaborative efforts over the next four years: (1) communication for behavior and social change; (2) higher education; (3) bio-security [invasive species ecology]; (4) diagnostic laboratory assistance; (5) biomedical sciences; (6) natural resources ecology including soils, forestry, agriculture and watershed restoration; (7) regional health communications and telecommunications; and (8) workforce development.

After the initial four year period, the memorandum of agreement will be reviewed by both organizations every two years.

Anguilla Day Speech by Chief Minister Hubert Hughes

*****

Your Excellency Governor Alistair Harrison and Mrs Harrison, Father of the Nation, Mr James Ronald Webster and Mrs Webster, Dignitaries, Fellow Anguillians, Friends, and visitors to our island --- GREETINGS on this Anguilla Day

Although a special day is set aside to recognize our revolutionary Leader Mr. James Ronald Webster, it is in order for us not only to recognize him today, but also to recognize all the other Heroes and Heroines who joined in that struggle 44 years ago.

Let us observe a minute of silence as we think of those who have since died and thank God for all who took part in that struggle to make Anguilla a better place for all of us to live in.

[I MINUTE SILENCE] --- THANK YOU

Commemorating the past is a good time for stock-taking.
44 years ago what were we fighting for?


1. Is it not for Freedom? ---

We wanted to be free to govern ourselves.
Free to be able to uphold and maintain our culture.
Free to plot our own destiny.
Free to seek a better way of life for our families and those yet unborn.

It was Rousseau the French philosopher who said: “Man is free but everywhere in chains.”

That is true, and we recognize that we cannot be an island to ourselves, we have to live in community with others, but we believe that we ought to have that CHOICE.

As an act of our freedom we chose not to be associated with St. Kitts but rather to be with our Mother Country.

As a Parent we believed that our Mother would promote and not impede our desire for self-determination. Together with the voice of United Nations General Secretary Ban ki Moon we reiterate the call for self determination on this our 44th Anniversary of the Revolution and we expect for Her Majesty’s Government to facilitate the process.

2. As we take stock, the SECOND thing we ought to recognise is that the success of the revolution 44 years ago was the fruit of our UNITY. Everybody at that time was fighting a perceived enemy for a better life.

Life in Anguilla today is different. We have been operating on a Party system of government, and the nature of a party system demands division. When however our difference is philosophical then it is possible that in the same family different members can back different parties and yet the family can function as a cohesive unit.

In Anguilla, unfortunately, the difference in the various parties is not philosophical and so I would like to urge Anguillians that whatever our political affiliation might be, we should first and foremost be Anguillians and be UNIFIED as Anguillians in the pursuit of our Freedom—the pursuit of achieving that dignity of self-determination.

Anguillians will have to think seriously about that future. It has become even more evident that in the formulation of legislation we are in so many ways appearing to be importing cultures that are foreign to Anguilla.

As a matter of fact I have seen, the use of the word “Crown” being interpreted not to mean the “Government of Anguilla”, but the “Queen”. So that by extension Anguillian lands which are owned by the Crown are in essence not belonging to you the native People of Anguilla, but are owned by a Power some 4000 miles away.

We will therefore have to decide what will be the destiny of this little island we call ‘the Rock’. Will we be a People known to the world as Anguillians, or, Belongers? Will we be a people with a Culture and Identity that distinguishes us as an entity in this place we call our World? Or will we let the erosion of all that we hold dear to US as a People continue --- leaving us being simply absorbed culturally, religiously and socially by a greater Administrative Power?

It will take all of US to make that Decision and I urge all Anguillians to be vigilant. The current throes of our sister territory Turks and Caicos Islands who are now faced with a Constitution being thrust upon them by our Mother and which they have so far rejected should be of grave concern to us.

Likewise, and quite recently the situation in the Cayman Islands where their Budget has been rejected three times by the Mother even as it was with us is a constant reminder that we are not yet in control of our own Destiny.

3. In the THIRD place permit me to say a word of thanks to our Civil Service.

Many have worked tirelessly around the clock to keep the wheels of government grinding.

A special word of congratulation is due to our Financial Unit who made us proud in providing our Budget. We ought to feel truly proud to know that our local technical team could produce a budget, though not acceptable to the technocrats in the Foreign Office, but upheld by the international experts.

That bespeaks volumes in our favour, in our quest and thrust for internal self-government.

4. FOURTHLY, the year that is past has not been without difficulties from without and within.

However this is not the time or the place to enumerate past difficulties. Suffice it to say that for some of us difficulties produce ENDURANCE and ENDURANCE is a good test of CHARACTER and CHARACTER is anchored in HOPE. Taking on these difficulties has strengthened our resolve.

I am committed, together with my other Ministers who share my vision of lifting Anguilla out of this serious financial crunch which we inherited and putting it on a surer footing than how we met it.

I have HOPE for a better Anguilla---I have HOPE, as is our motto for our 44th Anniversary that we as a People will Strengthen Our Core By Doing More.

My Administration is committed to work for a better Anguilla---and notwithstanding the current adversity, I ask that we stand as one People, linking hands now, as we did in 1967, sharing the same vision to a better future as we did in 1967 and more importantly learning from the mismanagement of the past so that Anguilla will never find itself being plunged into the financial chasm that the People of this Country endured and are still enduring.

I hope and pray that all of us on this 44th Anniversary of our Freedom will commit ourselves to going forward in our thrust for a better Anguilla as we determine the future of our Constitutional status.

May God bless us all and may He continue to Bless Anguilla.

Anguilla and Sint Maarten to Deepen Cooperation

*****

Anguilla-Sint Maarten Discussed Partnership Matters Including Ease Of Travel

The Anguillian

Improving access to Anguilla through St. Maarten, with Juliana International Airport as the hub, with a section to facilitate Anguilla-bound travellers and other immigration issues, was among some of the matters discussed here between Government and tourism officials from both territories.

A ten-member St. Maarten delegation visited Anguilla (in May) . The delegates included Deputy Prime Minister, Theodore Heyliger; Minister of Justice, Roland Duncan; incoming Director of Juliana Airportand former Director of Tourism, Regina La Bega; Tourism Policy Adviser, Angelique Romou; and Marketing Director, Edward Dest. They held discussions at a Functional Cooperation Meeting at Blue Ridge Resort & Conference Centre with Chief Minister and Minister of Tourism, Herbert Hughes; Adviser Jerome Roberts; Minister of Home Affairs, Walcott Richardson; Minister of Communications, Evan Gumbs; Adviser Sam Webster; Permanent Secretaries, Dr. Aidan Harrigan and Foster Rogers; Chairman of the Anguilla Tourist Board, Eustace Guishard; President of the Anguilla Hotel and Tourism Association, Sherille Hughes; Chairman of the Port Authority, Kenn Banks and others.

“This is the most important meeting that I have been able to attend and partially host since I got involved in Anguilla’s political life," Chief Minister Hughes stated, referring to the conference between the two territories. “I think if we can work together…in this part of the Caribbean, we will be very strong and compliment each other,” he said in his welcome remarks.

St. Maarten’s Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Heyliger, looked forward to increased joint cooperation and cited tourism, the amount of trade between the territories and the unity of the people as important factors. The Minister told the Anguilla Government officials about a new master plan for Juliana which took into account some of the challenges facing tourists and other travellers to and from Anguilla.

“We want to simplify the process of making sure that guests coming to Anguilla have a more seamless effort in getting there through St. Maarten,” he said. “That is one of the matters we would like to discuss [in terms] of what you would like to see happen at Juliana as one of our main partners using it as a hub airport. We want to know about some of the things and bottlenecks you encounter, and areas where we can foster a better relationship at the airport with the Government and people of Anguilla. It is our intention, in our plans, for the consultant and the management of Juliana to sit with you in terms of the design of Juliana and how we will change that design to make sure that it accommodates the Government and people of Anguilla.”

Replying, Chief Minister Hughes said it was “mutually benefiting for Juliana Airport to be the hub for both islands and that we should forget Puerto Rico.” He continued: “St. Maarten is really qualified to serve this special region in the Southeastern Caribbean: St. Barths, Saba, Statia, French and Dutch St. Martin/St. Maarten and Anguillla. It is beneficial for Juliana in the sense that the airport would be better utilised by combining all the visitors in this sub-region transiting through Juliana.

“It is therefore a win-win for us that we both continue to promote Anguilla’s tourism product which is destined to be extremely large even though it is at the upper end of the market. Viceroy is now on stream and Flag Luxury is going to be a much bigger entity when it re-starts and finishes. We want to make sure that when we promote our tourism product, we would be promoting Juliana in the process… Airlines would know that there is lucrative business seeing that they would not only have a number of rooms in St. Maarten but also in Anguilla and the neighbouring islands.”

The Chief Minister pointed out that there were people in Anguilla from various Caribbean countries with resident and belonger stamps in their passports as well as having work permits. He said intra-regional travel would facilitate business in St. Maarten and requested that in the new visa requirements such persons should be permitted to travel to and from that Dutch territory. “In the meantime, we would like easy travel for our tourists because that is where we are getting the bulk of our problems…When people pay big money in Anguilla for accommodation they don’t want to be restricted in getting to their destination,”Mr. Hughes added.

Anguilla’s Tourist Board Chairman, Mr. Guishard, said in part:

“One of our primary concerns is facilitating our guests coming into Anguilla through St. Maarten and also exiting St. Maarten. Presently, we have a situation where our guests arrive in St. Maarten and clear immigration, and if they are going to Marigot to the ferry it is simple and straightforward. But if they are travelling from the Dutch side to Anguilla, they have to go all the way over to Simpson Bay. This is a real challenge and we are getting many complaints.”

He reported that an owner of a 10million-dollar villa in Anguilla recently told him: “I will not bring my family back to Anguilla again. If I can sell this villa I would do so because I spent five hours with eight of my family members trying to get from St. Maarten to Anguilla. It is quicker to get from New York to Anguilla than from St. Maarten to Anguilla. I am not prepared to go through that anymore.”

Mr. Guishard noted that prior to this the St. Maarten Minister of Justice, Ronald Duncan, had assured members of an Anguillian delegation that if they could find a dedicated area in St. Maarten to process travellers to Anguilla, he would arrange to have immigration personnel there to facilitate them. “I think we are nearing an agreement on that area which would really help us simplify that matter for our visitors and residents travelling forward and backward,” he went on.

“Another thing which would help us would be to have the ferryboats running late at night, like 10 and 11 o’clock, to coordinate their service with the last flight into St. Maarten. I can also assure you that there would be a lot more traffic with many visitors and residents in Anguilla travelling to St. Maarten for late shopping and early dinners, thus taking advantage of that opportunity.

“We also need to find a way of facilitating in-transit passengers by air. At the moment, our two operators – Trans-Anguilla and Air Anguilla Services – seem to be having some problems. It would be good if you could look at this aspect and see how you could make it easier for our travellers by air coming into St. Maarten and transferring to one of these airlines. This would also assist us tremendously.

“Yet another thing is that we would really like to have an Anguilla Information Desk where passengers come out to the public area from immigration. There are so many travellers coming to Anguilla who enter that area without knowing where to go on their way to our island. We would also be grateful if we could have a special immigration line for arriving passengers for Anguilla as this would be very helpful.”

Mr. Guishard spoke about how the Anguilla Tourist Board had spent large sums of money with airlines, and on road shows, to attract visitors to the island. He emphasised that after all of that the island was still facing an access problem, and that the St. Maarten gateway was the answer.

Dr. Harrigan observed that while a lot of tourists from the North American market used to transit to Anguilla from Puerto Rico, the situation was rapidly changing with St. Maarten now emerging as the primary gateway to Anguilla. He stressed that Anguilla and St. Maarten had been “one economic space for generations” and whatever could be done to facilitate that, would be a fitting opportunity in that general context.

St. Maarten’s Minister for Justice, Mr. Duncan, said he had discussed the island’s difficulties with the Council of Ministers there and had “found good support in Government.” He noted, however, that there was “a little side track as a certain union feels that we may take bread out of their people’s month, but that was not really relevant…”

Mr. Duncan continued: “On the matter of the pre-clearance or the immigration at the airport, we support that. As a matter of fact, I mentioned to the previous delegation that we had a treaty with France that calls for joint controls at the airport. Following that treaty, we could easily do the same thing where an Anguillian Immigration Officer could have a booth on the airport and clear people from St. Maarten to Anguilla. We would have to technically establish a protocol or a treaty for the legal ramifications…

“We have an immigration office at the entrance of the bridge, and we are prepared to put Immigration Officers at the other locations that Anguilla has chosen and so this is something we are working on. I don’t think the night ferry operation is a problem because it is just a matter of scheduling the workers to be there. The airport is open until 10 o’clock at night so if we go to 12, I can’t see any qualm where that is concerned. That also needs the details but that will be no problem whatsoever.

“On the visas: about three weeks ago I sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs a written proposal on the matter to clarify. We recognise that Anguilla has encountered a problem on that. We do have a problem with overcrowding [from two particular countries]. However, in our proposal to Anguilla, what we are saying is if a person is a legal resident of Anguilla, we will treat him as if he has a visa etc. so he can visit and pass through. What we need from the Government of Anguilla is certification of the validity of his documents because in St. Maarten there is quite an industry in falsifying documents.

“As a matter of fact, we have also been publishing something that is not very much known. People with a US Multiple Visa can pass through and have no problem,” Mr. Duncan reported. He also disclosed that there was a 48-hour transit immigration window where persons could be allowed to stay in St. Maartenduring that period, but there were no hotel accommodation facilities at the airport, a matter that was still being worked out.

He further disclosed that since the visa requirements hehad been issuing visa waivers to persons for emergency and other related cases.

The Functional Cooperation Meeting between the Governments of Anguilla and St. Maarten also covered cooperative marketing efforts; and airlines services in the region and further afield being provided by Jet Blue to Puerto Rico, Copa and Col Airlines and West Jet to South America and Canada respectively.