Freedom Rider: Aboriginal Righteous Anger in Australia

by 

 Margaret Kimberley

 Editor and senior columnist

Black Agenda Report

“The encounter between aboriginals and the invading British resulted in extermination and an oppression which continues until this very day.”

On January 26th, a holiday known as Australia Day is celebrated in what is colloquially known as the land down under. On that date in 1788, the first British settlers arrived on the island continent we now know as Australia.

Of course, there were already human beings in Australia when the British went looking for new lands to conquer. These people had been there for at least 40,000 years and probably arrived by boat in a series of migrations from Africa and what is now New Guinea. Like the indigenous peoples of North and South America, they were very nearly wiped off the face of the earth by the migration of Europeans to their home land.

Australia’s history is no different in this regard. The encounter between aboriginals and the invading British resulted in extermination and an oppression which continues until this very day. Their lands were stolen, they were killed by new diseases, and even their children were taken from them as late as the 20th century. Today these people are the poorest of all Australians, are the most likely to be incarcerated, and die at younger ages than other groups in their country.

There is one simple word that describes the treatment of the original Australians by the invading people, and that word is genocide. To their credit, the aboriginal people have never stopped expressing their righteous indignation about the near total destruction of their race. No people so treated should ever cease protesting, demanding an end to their oppression, or petitioning for a redress of their grievances. Righteous anger is not only appropriate but necessary for all the peoples of the world whose lives and rights are so cruelly taken from them.

Read the complete article here.

British Virgin Islands London Office Director gives update

Director of the BVI London Office Mr. Kedrick Malone is currently in the Territory to present Government officials with a report on the BVI London Office’s planned activities for 2012.

Mr. Malone will also update the wider public on developments taking place in the United Kingdom (UK) and European Union (EU) that will impact the Territory over the course of the year.

Speaking with the Department of Information and Public Relations, Mr. Malone said, “2012 is a pivotal year as the UK and EU each plan to adopt important policy decisions that will determine their future relationships with the BVI and other Overseas Territories.”

The director also noted the BVI London Office’s attention to other important international events in which the Territory will participate; namely the 2012 Olympics and Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations, both scheduled to take place in London.

“My goal is to update the public on all these matters as well as on the progress being made in strengthening the Territory’s relationship with the UK through our partnership with Hertfordshire County Council and closer engagement with UK Government agencies and non-governmental organisations,” said Mr. Malone.

During his visit, the director will meet with His Excellency the Governor Mr. Boyd McCleary, CMG, CVO, Premier and Minister for Finance Dr. The Honourable D. Orlando Smith, OBE and Deputy Governor Mrs. Inez V. Archibald, among others.

In addition, the director will present the London Office’s initiatives at a press briefing on February 20 at 9am at the Central Administration Building Conference Room #3, to which all members of the media are invited. Mr. Malone has also scheduled appearances on several television and radio programmes, one of which is a GIS special television programme which will air this month. He is also a guest on the ZBVI 780AM radio talk show “A Look at the Community” on February 18.

The BVI London Office was established in 2002 and represents the interests of the BVI in Europe and the UK.

ALBA reiterates support for Puerto Rican self-determination

BOLIVARIAN ALLIANCE OF THE PEOPLES 

OF OUR AMERICA (ALBA)

SPECIAL COMMUNIQUÉ ON PUERTO RICO

Caracas, February 2012

The Heads of State and Government of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), gathered in Caracas, Venezuela, on February 4 - 5, 2012, expressed their most firm support to the inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and full independence.

They recalled that Puerto Rico is a Latin-American and Caribbean nation with own and unmistakable identity and history, which right to sovereignty has been violated by the colonial tutelage imposed for over one century.

They emphasized that the cause of independence of Puerto Rico is a matter that concerns the Latin America and the Caribbean region and their political agreement and cooperation bodies, in particular the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CLACS).

They demanded the freedom of political prisoners in jail for fighting in favor of the independence and self-determination of Puerto Rico, among them comrade Oscar López, who has been inhumanly held in jail for over thirty one years.

Who should support the decolonization of Puerto Rico?

by José M. López Sierra 

http://todosunidosdescolonizarpr.blogspot.com/

Someone who would support Puerto Rico’s decolonization is one who believes that it is wrong for any nation to own another nation, and believes in democracy.

All those who favor for Puerto Rico (PR) the political status of either independence, statehood, or a free association with any country that PR chooses ought to support decolonization.

With a United Nations’ (UN) controlled decolonization process, the political status that PR would have will be what Puerto Ricans decide among themselves.  For the first time in our history, there will be neither Spain nor the United States to put pressure on our decision.  That’s why we have had a long history of not being able to decide.  All those who fear democracy, get nervous with the idea of allowing Puerto Ricans to decide on their own.  Those are usually the ones who talk about democracy the most!  But, it is hard for them to walk the talk!

Even if 100% of the Puerto Rican at home and abroad were to favor colonialism for PR, that would not be an argument to justify maintaining the status quo.  The fact of the matter is that it is a crime against humanity for any nation to own another nation (United Nation Resolution 1514(XV) of 1960).

The only reason to maintain the status quo is for the benefit of continuing the exploitation of Puerto Rico by all those who benefit from it.  But this group represents only a handful.

Please join us this June 2012 at the United Nation’s hearing on Puerto Rico decolonization.  Puerto Rico has always been a colony.  Don’t you think it’s time for her to join the family of free sovereign nations?

¿Quién debe apoyar la descolonización 

de Puerto Rico?

José M. López Sierra

La persona que apoya la descolonización de Puerto Rico (PR) es alguien que cree que es malo que una nación sea dueña de otra nación, y cree en la democracia.

Toda persona que favorece para Puerto Rico la independencia, la estadidad, o la libre asociación con cualquier nación debe apoyar la descolonización.

Con un proceso de descolonización controlado por la Organización de Naciones Unidas (ONU), PR no tendrá, ni España ni Estados Unidos, para presionarla a una decisión que no sea la que quiera para si misma.  Por eso es que tenemos una larga historia de no poder ponernos de acuerdo sobre nuestro futuro.  A los que les tienen miedo a la democracia son los que se preocupan que sean los mismos puertorriqueños que decidan su futuro.  ¡Estos son los mismos que más hablan de la democracia, pero se le hace muy difícil vivirla!

Aún si el 100% de los puertorriqueños aquí y afuera  apoyarían la relación colonial actual de Puerto Rico, esto no justificaría mantener el estatus quo.  El hecho es que el colonialismo es un crimen en contra la humanidad (Resolución 1514(XV) de la ONU de 1960). 

La única razón para mantener el estatus quo es para seguir la explotación de PR para los que se benefician.  Pero este grupo es muy pequeño.

Únete a los que vamos estar presente en la vista de la ONU este junio sobre la descolonización de PR.   PR nunca ha sido libre.  ¿No crees que ya sea tiempo que PR se una al grupo de países libres y soberanos?

France urged to clean up deadly waste from its nuclear tests in (French) Polynesia (Maohi Nui)

193 nuclear tests carried out on the Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls between 1966 and 1996 have left a dangerous legacy.

Christine Chaumeau

Guardian Weekly

A sheltered bunker for the nuclear fire control point on Mururoa atoll. Photograph: Eric Feferberg/AFP

Seen from the air, the coral ring that separates the deep blue of the ocean from the lighter water of the lagoon lends Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls a sense of normality. But the picture changes dramatically as you come closer. Parts of the islands are covered in concrete and the vegetation usually found in the Tuamoto archipelago has given way to aito trees, a form of she-oak. "At home on Tuamoto we depend on the island for our livelihood but here it is dead," says an indignant Tuamotuan.

France carried out 193 nuclear tests on these two atolls from 1966 to 1996: 41 atmospheric and 137 underground tests, with a further 15 "safety trials". In 2006, the French ministry of defence acknowledged that 22 underground tests had given rise to the release of radioactive gases. Radioactive waste has been collected and buried in 27 pits on Mururoa.

Despite the repeated demands of the Polynesian authorities, a bill passed by the French parliament in 2010 disregarded the environmental consequences of the nuclear tests. It did, however, acknowledge their impact on public health and provide for compensation.

In January, the territorial assembly of French Polynesia voted in favour of a bill to rectify this omission. The next day France's upper chamber approved a motion that provides for Mururoa and Fangataufa, currently under the control of the defence ministry, to be restored to the Polynesian public domain, though the bill stands little chance of becoming law. "We realise that they are the two largest nuclear dumps in an ocean environment. But in Oceania you cannot separate human beings from their ecosystem," says the author of the bill, Senator Richard Tuheiva. "Restitution [of the atolls] is a way of soothing the psychological wounds [caused by the nuclear era]."

The bill provides for lasting "environmental remediation and constant monitoring of radiation and geological movement on the two atolls".

Every year the nuclear test centre monitoring department (DSCEN), a branch of France's arms procurement agency (DGA), takes samples from the land and lagoon of both atolls, and the surrounding ocean, publishing the results within two years. The most recent report, for 2009, notes "a low level of artificial radioactivity". But about 5kg of plutonium is trapped in the sediment at the bottom of the Mururoa and Fangataufa lagoons, according to the spokesman for the bill, the Socialist senator Roland Courteau. There is no question of them returning to "normal" use.

The test cavities still contain fission products and various radioactive substances. Two pits have been dug specially for the storage of nuclear waste.

The total activity of the waste that has accumulated in the Mururoa subsoil amounts to 13,279 terabecquerels (TBqs), according to a June 1998 assessment by the International Atomic Energy Authority. "That's 371 times the threshold for the classification of basic nuclear installations," says Bruno Chareyon, head of the committee for independent research and information on radioactivity (Criirad), a French non-profit laboratory. More than 3,200 tonnes of various types of radioactive waste was tipped into the Pacific, sinking to depths exceeding 1,000 metres off the coast of Mururoa and Hao island. In February last year, the defence ministry admitted that it was possible that part of Mururoa atoll might cave in, sapped by the underground tests. A landslide could lead to radioactive matter currently enclosed in rock being released into the sea.

"Mururoa is a real nuclear tip," says Maina Sage, a representative of the pro-autonomy Ia Ora te Fenua party in the Polynesian territorial assembly. She is demanding an independent study to assess the scope for consolidating the storage facilities and criticises the bill's failure to provide for declassification of the atolls. If the same rules for the treatment of nuclear waste applied here, as elsewhere, it would prevent the persistence "double standards".

For a long time the Polynesian authorities were fooled by the official story of clean tests and the prospects of economic development. Government secrecy neutralised their efforts too. But now they distrust what they are told. In July 2010, the former leader of the territorial council, Gaston Tong Sang, wrote to the then environment minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, and dared to suggest that the environment ministry – which would enjoy "greater independence and legitimacy" – should take charge of environmental monitoring.

To guarantee the transparency of information available to Polynesian residents, the bill requires the military authorities to task the Nuclear Radiation and Safety Institute (ISRN) with a specific mission for Mururoa and Fangataufa. Courteau thinks that the rules on military secrecy should be adapted to suit "the reality of the risks incurred", in which case a national commission would be set up "to monitor the impacts and effects of climate change on geomechanical stability and emissions of hazardous radioactive nuclides".

In his letter, Sang also asked for clarification of the radiation status of Hao, which was used as a forward base for the Pacific Experimentation Centre (CEP) and France's Atomic Energy Commission (CEA). This request was repeated in June 2011 by the DSCEN delegate from French Polynesia. A month later, on 11 July, the high commissioner, Richard Didier, refused to initiate further observations. He said that "all the results obtained show the absence of radioactive contamination". Contacted by Le Monde, the government representative in French Polynesia refused to answer questions.

Some 1,500 people live on Hao island. In 2009, the defence ministry started a huge environmental remediation scheme. A study of the extent of pollution, in particular by hydrocarbons and heavy metals, is due to be published by June.

This article originally appeared in Le Monde.

Sustaining Economic Growth in the British Virgin Islands?

By

Benito Wheatley

February  2012

Since the end of the global recession in 2009, the British Virgin Islands (BVI) has encountered difficulties in consolidating its economic recovery. Initiatives to stimulate the economy have achieved only modest success as growth remains constrained by unfavourable global economic conditions. In particular, the United States (US) and European economies to which the territory’s own economy is linked continue to experience financial and economic turmoil and are forecast by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to grow at anemic rates of 1.8 percent and 1.1 percent respectively in 2012. 

In addition, the gradual weakening of the world economy and the adoption of unfriendly regulatory policies and tax measures (e.g. Air Passenger Duty) by a number of developed countries aimed at offshore financial centres (OFCs) and the airline industry, have contributed to a global economic environment of declining growth in which the territory must operate. These factors are dampening the BVI’s economic outlook for 2012 and beyond. 

Against this backdrop, the question must be asked: how can the territory achieve economic recovery under the stifling global economic conditions of today? The answer to this question is not simple. On the one hand, the BVI’s economic recovery will depend on external factors over which it has no control. On the other, it will depend on the territory’s own efforts to enhance the global competitiveness of its tourism and financial services industries. 

Links to the US, Europe and World Economy 

Externally, the BVI is highly dependent upon the US and Europe for economic growth. The US is the territory’s main source market for tourists. In 2010, 842,497 tourists visited the BVI, the large majority of whom were American. A similar, but unconfirmed, number visited in 2011. Europe is also an important tourist market, but exports a much smaller number of visitors to the territory. In the financial services industry, Asia drives the incorporation sector, but trust and estate business is driven by Europe and funds business by the US. 

The ongoing economic and financial turmoil in these countries and their governments’ reactionary responses has weakened their economies internal demand for offshore financial services and international tourism. As a result, the territory’s economy remains constrained, having recorded economic growth of just 2 percent in 2010 after seeing an 11.6 percent drop in gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009. End of year figures for 2011 are expected to be little better and an appreciable acceleration of growth in 2012 is unlikely. 

The IMF in its September 2011 World Economic Outlook report (Slowing growth, rising risks) indicated that the economic recoveries of the US and Europe are losing momentum and a resumption of growth will depend on their governments’ actions to stimulate economic growth and address the chronic debt and deficit problems facing their economies. What these developments suggest is that the BVI must prepare for the eventuality of an extended period of low growth in the US and Europe and lower demand for its tourism product and offshore financial services. Already respected economists have begun describing the years ahead as the US’ and Europe’s “lost decade.” 

In light of the difficulties being experienced by these economies to which the BVI is economically linked, the territory must take action to boost its own economic growth and security. 

Tourism Development 

In the tourism sector, this can be achieved by improving the quality of the BVI’s tourism product. A number of important measures are needed in this regard. 

First, the territory needs to raise the standard of customer service delivered to visitors, which would help to encourage return visits and boost the BVI’s image as an elite tourist destination. 

Second, the territory needs a 5 star hotel and the complimentary international convention and wedding facilities that are standard in leading tourism destinations. The continued absence of these accommodations and facilities only undermine the BVI’s global competitiveness and endangers the future of the tourism industry. Their development in the near-term would also generate much needed economic development in the construction sector and give a much needed boost to related retail businesses. 

Third, the territory needs additional land-based tourist attractions to compensate for its modest historical sites and museums, limited luxury shopping and underdeveloped art and craft market. The natural choice is the hosting of cultural festivals surrounding food, art, crafts, music and dance. These types of activities would add much needed flavour to the mix of available land-based entertainment and differentiate the BVI from its competitors who boast many of the same natural attractions (i.e. sand, sea and sun) and have superior historical sites and shopping. 

Fourth, the territory needs direct flights from the US, UK and Brazil to the Terrence B. Lettsome International Airport. When traveling to the BVI from or through these countries, the layover and transfer bottlenecks encountered in Puerto Rico and Antigua and ferry bottlenecks in the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), make the territory a less attractive tourist destination relative to other Caribbean or Central American countries that offer the convenience of direct flights. The Terrence B. Lettsome International Airport’s runway must be extended to accommodate wide-body jetliners that can make the long-haul flight from North America, South America and Europe, which would ease the travel burden on tourists originating from these regions. 

Fifth and last, the territory needs a robust marketing campaign to sell the BVI as a destination to the rest of the world. In response to the recent downturn in international travel in North America and Europe, other Caribbean and Central American countries have aggressively marketed themselves in North America and Europe using television, radio and print media. The BVI must employ similar marketing strategies to make up lost ground in the global marketplace. 

Financial Services Promotion 

Like the tourism industry, the financial services sector requires a number of measures to improve its global competitiveness that is driven by both marketing and actual services. 

On the marketing side, the BVI needs a targeted global marketing campaign and a sustained presence in both mature financial markets, such as those in the US and Europe, and fast-growing emerging markets like Brazil, India and China. In particular, the rapid economic expansion of emerging markets presents real opportunities for the BVI to drive trust and estate, fund administration, and company incorporation business to its shores. 

In the area of shipping registration, aggressive marketing is also needed to promote the territory as a jurisdiction. As a member of the British Red Ensign Group holding Category One status, the BVI must seek to build up its shipping registry by taking advantage of the current surplus of cargo ships and other freight vessels in the global shipping market that require registration. To realise this goal the Virgin Islands Shipping Registry’s (VISR’s) local operations must be ramped up and an international presence established in major shipping markets in the US, Europe, Japan, South Korea and leading emerging economies that include China, India and Brazil. 

More generally, the BVI’s overall attractiveness as a financial jurisdiction can be enhanced by widening the range of corporate and professional services offered to clients in an effort to begin moving the territory toward becoming a one-stop shop financial services centre. In doing so, special emphasis should be placed on building up capacity in the Accounting sector, which naturally complements other sectors of the industry. 

Toward Sustained Economic Growth 

The measures described above would go a long way in boosting the economy’s growth in the short- and medium-term. However, over the long-run additional measures will be needed to achieve sustained economic growth. This will mean expanding and diversifying the tourism and financial services sectors and developing new economic sectors from which economic growth can be generated. By broadening the BVI’s economic base, the economy’s resilience will be strengthened and its vulnerability to external shocks (i.e. financial crisis and global recession) reduced. 

In order to realise this goal, the territory will need an economic plan that sets out a policy framework for developing the economy, whose components would include, among other things, sectoral strategies for economic growth and a bona fide investment policy. 

Consolidating Economic Recovery 

In the final analysis, the BVI cannot change the dynamics of declining growth that have beset the world economy. Its main economic sectors are linked to the floundering economies of the US and Europe whose economic and financial problems have contributed to a stifling global economic environment. Despite these challenges, the BVI’s economic recovery continues, led by financial services, and a return to respectable growth remains attainable. The key to achieving this goal lies in improving the global competitiveness of the tourism and financial services industries and investing in new sectors over the longer term. By strengthening these areas, the BVI will eventually see a return to the strong economic growth that has characterised its economy for the last three decades. 

Responses can be sent to: ceo@wheatleyconsultinggroup.com. 

TIME TO REVISIT THE WEST INDIAN COMMISSION!

PEOPLES EMPOWERMENT PARTY

 CLEMENT PAYNE CULTURAL CENTRE

                                                                                                                              

by

DAVID A. COMISSIONG

email:clementpaynechambers@gmail.com

President

A new year provides an opportunity - even if only psychologically - for a new beginning! And so, the Peoples Empowerment Party (PEP) embraces the year 2012 as an opportunity for the Barbadian and Caribbean people to "take a fresh guard" in relation to both their individual island nation building projects and to their collective multi-territory Caribbean Community project.

During the course of this year we will be urging Caribbean governments and populations to acknowledge that they have gone off-track in their nation building journeys and to rectify the gross deficiencies that have now become so glaringly obvious. We will also be urging upon our Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member nations a new effort at revitalising the integration movement, guided by the multiplicity of recommendations contained in the historic Report of the West Indian Commission.

The PEP wishes to draw to the attention of the governments and people of our fifteen CARICOM member nations that the year 2012 is the 20th anniversary of the ground breaking Report issued by the West Indian Commission!

It was on the 25th of May 1992 that Chairman of the West Indian Commission, Sir Shridath Ramphal, and his 14 fellow Commissioners, signed off on the Report entitled "Time For Action", after an extensive three year period of consulting with the Caribbean people and working out a comprehensive blueprint for taking the CARICOM countries forward and deepening their unity.

The West Indian Commission was a product of the historic CARICOM heads of Government Summit that was held in Grenada in July 1989, and that produced the visionary ‘Grand Anse Declaration’, which, amongst other things, decreed the establishment of a CARICOM Single Market And Economy (CSME) and gave birth to a West Indian Commission - a convocation of wise Caribbean men and women - to craft a programme for taking our sub-region forward into the 21st century.

To their credit, the members of the West Indian Commission took their mandate very seriously, and within the space of three years delivered to the heads of Government a Caribbean people’s manifesto for change and action. But, as is so often the case, the CARICOM governments engaged in a minimal implementation of the 500 page report, thereby resulting in a multitude of constructive Caribbean-building proposals lying fallow and un-used for the past 20 years!

It is incumbent on us therefore to use this 20th anniversary year to revisit the ‘Time For Action’ manifesto; to identify those proposals that are still relevant to the challenges that our CARICOM countries face in 2012; and to craft a new developmental initiative based on the native Caribbean wisdom that the Commission’s Report represented.

It is clear to us in the PEP that our CARICOM nations need to confront this era of profound recession with a regional development programme based on the following planks:-

(1) The development of collectively owned, multi-territory regional industries producing food and basic industrial commodities;

(2) The establishment of a regional monetary authority focused on ensuring exchange and convertibility of national currencies; developing a common regional currency; and augmenting the stock of development capital;

(3) The development of a regional transportation network comprising merchant shipping and a regional airline and fast ferry service;

(4) The development of a regional telecommunications, mass media and film - making network;

(5) The establishment and promotion of a multi-territory CARICOM tourism project;

(6) The establishment of a regional science, technology, research and development network, and a regional ‘Energy Authority’.

(7) The downsizing, rationalization and sharing of Foreign Affairs departments and diplomatic missions.

This is the type of developmental initiative that the ideas contained in the West Indian Commission report can help us to flesh out!

Let us therefore use 2012 to pay the greatest tribute that we can to those of the 15 illustrious Caribbean men and women who, since giving birth to the ‘Time For Action’ manifesto, have gone on to the ancestral realm - Dame Nita Barrow, Rex Nettleford, Alister McIntyre, William Demas and Allan Kirton - by giving serious and deserved consideration to their proposals and recommendations!

British MP calls for action on repatriation of Chagossians

David Snoxell: Ministers recognise the injustice done to the Chagossians. But it's time for action, not words.

David Snoxell is Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group and was British High Commissioner to Mauritius, 2000-04, and Deputy Commissioner of BIOT, 1995-97.

In 1965, the UK excised the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius to create a new colony, the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), so that the largest of the 55 islands, Diego Garcia, could be developed as a US base. In the process the population of 1,500 Ilois were removed from their homeland and dumped in Mauritius and Seychelles. Since the 54 outer islands have never been required for defence purposes what is stopping the Government allowing Chagossians to return for visits or to resettle there?

Since 1999 their case for doing so has trailed through the courts. At each stage the Chagossians won. But at the last hurdle in 2008, the Law Lords gave a qualified 3:2 verdict in favour of the Government. However, the case is now before the European Court of Human Rights. If it decides the case is admissible the Chagossians are likely to win since the UK is manifestly in breach of one or more of the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case should never have had to go this far. The right to return was restored in November 2000 by Robin Cook, following the High Court judgment in favour of the Chagossians, but this was overturned in June 2004 by Orders in Council. Jack Straw was to admit in 2009 that by not consulting Parliament he had sacrificed legitimacy for speed. It is inconceivable that Parliament would have agreed to deprive the Chagossians of the most fundamental of all human rights – the right to return to one’s homeland. It would be far better if the FCO were to withdraw from the case and settle out of court, as already suggested by Strasbourg. This would avoid fuelling the campaign of those who see its judgments as an attack on the independence of our courts.

Over the past decade there has been a systemic failure – a lack of political will and foresight  set against a background of international crises, low level handling of the issues in the FCO, lack of ministerial engagement, buying time, the inevitable face-saving, the defence of past mistakes and mounting legal bills, (about £3 million), exacerbated by the turnover of staff and ministers. This was not a planned strategy, rather a failure to grasp the nettle.  Since 2002, Ministers have signed off on keeping the Chagossians in exile, deploying largely disproved arguments, such as the security of the base, "treaty" obligations to the US, feasibility and cost of resettlement, conservation and the recently created Marine Protection Area.

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All Party Parliamentary Group, whose purpose is "to help bring about a resolution of the issues concerning the future of the Islands and the Chagossians", was established in the wake of the 2008 defeat by the Law Lords and has wrestled with these arguments in the course of 26 meetings over more than three years. The group has currently 41 members. Several of its members are in the Coalition Government and four were FCO Ministers. The Group has had meetings with FCO Ministers on four occasions, with leaders of the Chagossian groups, the US Embassy and Mauritius High Commissioner, conservation groups and the UK Chagos Support Association whose Patrons are Philippa Gregory, Ben Fogle and Benjamin Zephaniah. The FAC has noted: “We conclude that there is a strong moral case for the UK permitting and supporting a return to BIOT for the Chagossians. The FCO has argued that such a return would be unsustainable but we find these arguments less than convincing”.

Before the election both parties expressed strong support for the Chagossians and William Hague promised “to ensure a fair settlement of this long standing dispute”. Nick Clegg’s office said: “Nick and the Lib Dems believe that the Government has a moral responsibility to allow these people to at last return”.  Then in a letter to a constituent Vince Cable announced in September 2010 that the Government was withdrawing from the case, opting instead for a friendly settlement. He noted that William Hague was “also committed to a fair settlement and that steps had already been taken to ensure their return”. A week later he was forced to recant, but added that “I am sure that the Chagossian cause will continue to be championed by my colleagues within the Liberal Democrat party.”

Why, then, in the 21 months of this Government has nothing happened?  There has been an abject failure of politicians to carry through the commitments they made on several occasions in parliamentary debates. A tiny group of FCO officials and legal advisers have continued to run policy towards Chagos.  Whilst being more sympathetic than the previous government, ministerial answers to parliamentary questions, interventions and letters have simply reiterated standard FCO lines. True, Ministers' public and parliamentary stance comes over as positive and anguished but the reality is, so far nothing has changed.  In a recent meeting with members of the Chagos APPG, the Foreign Secretary referred to FCO positions and policy rather than his own. The gap between what politicians feel and what officials "recommend" has never been so obvious. Yes, the climate has changed - but not yet the tide.

In a major speech last year, the Foreign Secretary said: “My ambition is a Foreign Office in which ideas thrive and the status quo can be challenged fearlessly...our diplomats excel at finding deft, realistic and workable solutions”.  There is not much evidence that Ministers are succeeding in challenging the status quo on Chagos and applying political will and compromise to finding workable solutions - though, unlike the previous government, it is pretty clear that they would like to do so. They give the impression of being unwilling passengers bound and gagged in the backseat of a car driven doggedly by their officials.

The UK remains in violation of several UN human rights instruments and decisions. Our international reputation continues to be badly damaged by accusations of double standards. In the same speech, the Foreign Secretary said: “We cannot ride roughshod over international opinion or neglect to ensure that our actions are seen to be as legitimate as possible in the eyes of the world”.  What better year than 2012, when the eyes of the world are on London for the Olympic Games and the Diamond Jubilee, to restore the human rights and the dignity of the Chagossian people? What better way to mark the Queen’s long reign, which has seen the transition of the British Empire to a Commonwealth of Nations, by bringing to an end this tragedy and relic of Empire in the Indian Ocean? Jeremy Corbyn, the Chairman of the APPG, has asked for a debate early in the session. This will be the opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to tell Parliament about the progress that he is making towards a settlement of the issues.

British Empire continues amidst sovereignty, militarisation disputes

Britain, same insatiable colonialist

Britain's colonialist ambitions seem to remain insatiable as the British government continues to refrain from negotiating over the sovereignty of the lands it has colonized. When the sovereignty of Hong Kong was granted (returned? - OTR) to the People's Republic of China in 1997, the British Empire hoped that it would legitimately hold sovereignty over its remaining colonized territories under the rubric of 'the British Overseas Territories.' 

However, of the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories listed on the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization waiting to be decolonized, 10 including the Malvinas Islands and Gibraltar remain under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. 

As Argentina and Spain have called for negotiations, the British government continues to take a hostile stance ruling out the possibilities for any negotiation and taking provocative acts. 

Earlier this week, the British government sent the Duke of Cambridge Prince Williams clad in the uniform of the 'conqueror' to Malvinas Islands on a six-week-long tour to act as a search and rescue pilot. 

Furthermore, Britain's Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced plans for sending its most advanced warship to the islands in order to give Buenos Aires a 'pause' to think about calling for negotiations over the sovereignty of the islands. 

This comes as the UN Special Committee on Decolonization's draft  on the Malvinas Islands (see text of adopted resolution below - OTR) calls for a 'peaceful, negotiated settlement of the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom.' 

Moreover, as the Spanish government calls for bilateral negotiations over Gibraltar's sovereignty under the Brussels Agreement, the British Secretary of State for Europe, David Lidington categorically announced that Britain would not sit at the table of negotiations. 

In 1713, under the Treaty of Utrecht, Spain gave sovereignty over the town and castle of Gibraltar to Britain. However, the isthmus and the airspace were not part of the treaty. 

Meanwhile, Lidington made no reference to this issue and maintained that Britain “will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their wishes.” 

Furthermore, British Foreign Secretary William Hague's comments in the Somali capital of Mogadishu tells of Britain's plots for its oil-rich ex-colony as he described his visit as a 'major diplomatic push to bring stability, and a sign of Britain's commitment to the people and country of Somalia.' 

Britain's refusal to get engaged in negotiations over the sovereignty of lands it has colonized takes the lid off its colonialist nature no matter if the lands are called 'the British Overseas Territories.' 

ISH/HN/HE

*****

 Report of the United Nations Decolonisation Committee

2011 

Chapter XI 

Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 

...135. The Special Committee considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) at its 6th and 7th meetings, on 21 June 2011. 

136. In its consideration of the item, the Special Committee took into account paragraph 4 (b) of the annex to General Assembly resolution 58/316, as well as other relevant resolutions and decisions. 

137. During its consideration of the item, the Special Committee had before it a working paper prepared by the Secretariat containing information on developments concerning the Territory (A/AC.109/2011/14). 

138. At the 6th meeting, the Chair informed the Special Committee that the delegations of Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay had requested to participate in the Committee’s consideration of the item. The Committee decided to accede to the requests. 

139. At the same meeting, in accordance with a decision taken at the 3rd meeting, statements were made by Roger Edwards and Dick Sawle of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands, Maria Angélica del Carmen Vernet and Alejandro Betts (see A/AC.109/2011/SR.6). 

140. Also at the same meeting, the representative of Chile, also on behalf of Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), introduced a draft resolution on the item (A/AC.109/2011/L.7). 

141. At the same meeting, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of Argentina made a statement (see A/AC.109/2011/SR.6). 

142. Also at the same meeting, statements were made by the representatives of Cuba, China, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Sierra Leone, Paraguay (on behalf of the Common Market of the South and associated countries), Guyana (on behalf of the Union of South American Nations), Guatemala (on behalf of the Ibero-American countries), Brazil, Uruguay, Peru and El Salvador (see A/AC.109/2011/SR.6). 

143. At the same meeting, the Special Committee adopted draft resolution A/AC.109/2011/L.7, without a vote. 

144. At the 7th meeting, on 21 June, the representative of Grenada made a statement (see A/AC.109/2011/SR.7). 

Resolution Adopted without a vote

21st June 2011

Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 

The Special Committee (on Decolonization), 

       Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), 

    Aware that the maintenance of colonial situations is incompatible with the United Nations ideal of universal peace,

    Recalling General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 2065 (XX) of 16 December 1965, 3160 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, 31/49 of 1 December 1976, 37/9 of 4 November 1982, 38/12 of 16 November 1983, 39/6 of 1 November 1984, 40/21 of 27 November 1985, 41/40 of 25 

November 1986, 42/19 of 17 November 1987 and 43/25 of 17 November 1988, Special Committee resolutions A/AC.109/756 of 1 September 1983, A/AC.109/793 of 21 August 1984, A/AC.109/842 of 9 August 1985, A/AC.109/885 of 14 August 1986, A/AC.109/930 of 14 August 1987, A/AC.109/972 of 11 August 1988, A/AC.109/1008 of 15 August 1989, A/AC.109/1050 of 14 August 1990,  A/AC.109/1087 of 14 August 1991, A/AC.109/1132 of 29 July 1992, A/AC.109/1169 of 14 July 1993, A/AC.109/2003 of 12 July 1994, A/AC.109/2033 of 13 July 1995, A/AC.109/2062 of 22 July 1996, A/AC.109/2096 of 16 June 1997, A/AC.109/2122 of 6 July 1998, A/AC.109/1999/23 of 1 July 1999, A/AC.109/2000/23 of 11 July 2000, A/AC.109/2001/25 of 29 June 2001, A/AC.109/2002/25 of 19 June 2002, A/AC.109/2003/24 of 16 June 2003, the resolution adopted on 18 June 2004, the resolution adopted on 15 June 2005, the resolution adopted on 15 June 2006, the resolution adopted on 21 June 2007, the resolution adopted on 12 

June 2008, the resolution adopted on 18 June 2009 and the resolution adopted on 24 June 2010, and Security Council resolutions 502 (1982) of 3 April 1982 and 505 (1982) of 26 May 1982, 

    Distressed that, notwithstanding the time that has elapsed since the adoption of General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX), this prolonged dispute has not yet been settled, 

    Aware of the interest of the international community in the resumption by the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of their negotiations in order to find as soon as 

possible a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the sovereignty dispute relating to the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), 

    Expressing its preoccupation over the fact that the good level of relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom has not yet led to negotiations on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), 

    Considering that this situation should facilitate the resumption of the negotiations in order to find a peaceful solution to the dispute over sovereignty, 

    Reaffirming the principles of the Charter of the United Nations on the non-use of force or the threat of force in international relations and the peaceful settlement of international disputes, 

    Calling attention to the importance of the Secretary-General continuing his efforts to give full effect to the mission entrusted to him by the General Assembly in its resolutions on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), 

    Reaffirming the need for the parties to take due account of the interests of the population of the islands in accordance with the provisions of the General Assembly resolutions on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), 

    1.  Reiterates that the way to put an end to the special and particular colonial situation in the question of  the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is the peaceful and negotiated settlement of the dispute over sovereignty between the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great 

Britain and Northern Ireland; 

    2.  Takes note of the views expressed by the President of the Argentine Republic on the occasion of the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly; 

    3.  Regrets that, in spite of the widespread international support for a negotiation between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom that includes all aspects of the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the implementation of the General Assembly resolutions on this question has not yet started; 

    4.  Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to consolidate the current process of dialogue and cooperation through the resumption of negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute relating to the question of the Falkland 

Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the provisions of General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25; 

    5.  Reiterates its firm support for the mission of good offices of the Secretary-General in order to assist the parties in complying with the request made by the General Assembly in its resolutions on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas); 

    6.  Decides to keep under review the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) subject to the directives that the General Assembly has issued and may issue in that regard.