Richard TUHEIAVA demande la réinscription de la Polynésie française sur la liste des territoires non autonomes de l'O.N.U

Tahiti Infos

Le sénateur Richard Tuheiava a fait parvenir à Tahiti-Infos la copie d'une Question écrite parlementaire déposée par ses soins le 21 juin 2011 au Sénat à l'attention du Premier Ministre de la République française, M. François FILLON, au sujet de la réinscription de la Collectivité d'Outre-mer de la Polynésie française sur la liste des territoires non-autonomes de l'O.N.U. Cette démarche s'inscrit en conformité avec la volonté politique du Gouvernement de la Polynésie française, exprimée dans sa résolution officielle du 15 juin 2011 publiée au JOPF du 16 juin 2011, ainsi que celle des 29 représentants de l'Assemblée de la Polynésie française cosignataires d'une pétition commune datée des 10 mars, 15 et 16 juin 2011: 

Réinscription de la Collectivité d'Outre-mer de Polynésie française sur la Liste 

des territoires non autonomes de l'O.N.U. 

M. Richard Tuheiava appelle l'attention de M. le Premier ministre sur la volonté politique officielle du gouvernement de la Polynésie française et d'une majorité absolue de représentants à l’Assemblée de la Polynésie française, de faire réinscrire cette collectivité sur la liste des territoires non autonomes de l'O.N.U. Par une pétition cosignée les 10 mars, 15 et 16 juin 2011, pas moins de 29 représentants sur les 57 siégeant à l’Assemblée de la Polynésie française ont sollicité la réinscription de la Polynésie française sur liste précitée. 

Puis, par une résolution publiée le 16 juin 2011 au JOPF, le Président du Pays et son conseil des ministres, se sont associés à cette demande. Ces deux documents revêtent une portée politique historique qu'il convient d'acter au plan national. En effet, la Charte des Nations Unies du 26 juin 1945, dont la France est cosignataire, est dotée d’un article 73 relatifs aux territoires non autonomes qui stipule notamment que, pour les populations qui ne s’administrent pas encore complètement elles-mêmes, les «puissances administrantes» doivent y respecter le principe de « la primauté des intérêts de ces territoires ». 

Inscrites sur la liste des territoires non-autonomes de l'O.N.U. régis par cet article, la Polynésie française et la Nouvelle Calédonie ont, en 1947, été retirées de celle-ci par décision unilatérale de la France. Dotée d’une autonomie de gestion dès 1977, avant l’adoption d’un statut d’autonomie interne en 1984, la Polynésie a subi, sur trois décades successives, une mutation brutale de son mode de société imputable à la manne financière provenant de la France lors de ses essais nucléaires. 

La Constitution française a été modifiée afin de voir créer un nouvel article 74 qui ouvre la voie à une autonomie institutionnelle en faveur des collectivités territoriales d’Outre-mer qui se verraient « dotés d’une organisation particulière propre conforme à leurs intérêts au sein de la République". Or, la période d’instabilité politique qui s'en est suivie de 2004 à 2011 révèlera les limites de cette autonomie. La Polynésie française n’a toujours pas été réinscrite sur la Liste des territoires non autonomes de l'O.N.U. alors que les divers faits coloniaux que son Histoire révèle justifient à eux seuls une telle mesure. 

Mais, elle conduit également à repenser un modèle de développement économique, social et culturel davantage en conformité avec les dispositions de l’article 73 de la Charte des Nations Unies. La situation financière et économique de la Polynésie française de 2008 à 2011 s’est gravement détériorée en raison d’une instabilité politique remontant à mai 2004 mais qui prend en réalité ses racines d’une part, dans un nomadisme politique aux dépens de l’unicité de la collectivité polynésienne, et d'autre part, dans une forme de déni du gouvernement national envers les aspirations souverainistes d’une classe politique qui a démocratiquement pénétré la gouvernance locale. 

Sans une trêve politique soumise à l’arbitrage d’une organisation supranationale telle que l'O.N.U., il est illusoire d’envisager une refonte sereine du modèle de développement économique et social dans l’intérêt prioritaire bien compris des polynésiens. Le parlementaire sollicite donc du Premier Ministre qu’il puisse ouvrir au plus tôt les conditions d’un dialogue politique constructif entre le gouvernement national et les institutions politiques polynésiennes, en vue d’envisager - au moyen d’un cadre consensuel à définir - la réinscription de la Polynésie française sur la Liste des territoires non autonomes de l’O.N.U. 

Richard, Ariihau TUHEIAVA
Sénateur de la Polynésie française
Membre de la Commission des lois
Secrétaire Exécutif ICOMOS Pacific

Richard Tuheiava demand the reinstatement of French Polynesia on the list of Territories of the United Nations 

Senator Richard Tuheiava sent to Tahiti Info-copy of a written Parliamentary Question tabled by him June 21, 2011 in the Senate to the attention of the Prime Minister of the French Republic, Mr. François Fillon, about reinstatement of the Community of Overseas French Polynesia on the United Nations list of Non-autonomous territories.This approach is consistent with the political will of the Government of French Polynesia, expressed in its resolution of 15 official JOPF published in June 2011 16 June 2011, as well as that of the 29 representatives of the Assembly of French Polynesia co-signed a joint petition dated of March 10, 15 and 16 June 2011: " 

Reinstatement of the Community Overseas of 

French Polynesia on the UN List 

of Non-Self Governing Territories 

M. Richard Tuheiava draws the attention of the Prime Minister on political official government of French Polynesia and a majority of representatives in the Assembly of French Polynesia, to re-list the community on the list of territories Non-Self-UN co-signed a petition by the March 10, 15 and 16 June 2011, no fewer than 29 representatives of the 57 represented in the Assembly of French Polynesia have requested the reinstatement of French Polynesia on that list. 

Then, by a resolution issued June 16, 2011 at JOPF, the Country President and his Cabinet, were associated with this application. These two documents are of a political history that should act nationally. Indeed, the United Nations Charter of 26 June 1945, which France is a signatory, has a Section 73 Non-Self Governing Territories, which stipulates that, for people who do not yet attained a full measure of self-determination , the "administering Powers" there must respect the principle of "primacy of the interests of these territories." 

On the list of dependent territories of the United Nations governed by this article, French Polynesia and New Caledonia in 1947, was removed from it by unilateral decision of France. With an independent management in 1977, before the adoption of a status of internal autonomy in 1984, underwent Polynesia, on three successive decades, a sudden change in its mode of society due to the financial windfall from France in nuclear testing. 

The French Constitution was amended to create a new view of Article 74 which sets the stage for institutional autonomy for local governments overseas who would "have a particular organization consistent with their own interests within the Republic. "But the period of political instability that ensued from 2004 to 2011 reveal the limits of that autonomy. French Polynesia has still not been reinstated on the List of Non-Self UN while the various facts that its colonial history reveals alone justify such a measure. 

But it also leads to rethink a model of economic, social and cultural development into greater conformity with the provisions of Article 73 of the Charter of Nations United. The financial and economic situation of French Polynesia from 2008 to 2011 has seriously deteriorated due to political instability dating back to May 2004 but which in reality takes its roots on the one hand, in a nomadic politics with the uniqueness of the Polynesian community, and secondly, in a form of denial of the national government to the sovereigntist aspirations of a political class that has penetrated democratic local governance. 

Without a political truce to arbitration of a supranational organization like the UN, it is unrealistic to consider an overhaul of the model of peaceful social and economic development primarily in the interests of Polynesian well understood. The Parliamentary therefore seeks Prime Minister that he could open as soon as possible the conditions for a constructive political dialogue between the national government and political institutions Polynesian, to consider - through a consensual framework to define - the reinstatement of French Polynesia on the List of dependent territories of the UN. " 

Richard, Ariihau Tuheiava Senator of French Polynesia Member of the Law Commission Executive Secretary ICOMOS Pacific 

El proyecto de status y la descolonización

Escrito por Fernando Martín García

El proyecto de consulta sobre el status político ha sido finalmente aprobado y convertido en ley. El próximo día de las elecciones generales por lo tanto el electorado tendrá ante sí una papeleta en que podrá expresarse a favor o en contra de que continúe la actual condición colonial, y en pregunta separada cuál favorece entre tres alternativas no territoriales a saber: la estadidad, la independencia, o un Estado Libre Asociado Soberano, fuera de la cláusula territorial.

Concluido el proceso de aprobación legislativa es momento para hacer una valoración política de la consulta que se avecina y de movilizar al independentismo para sacarle el mayor provecho para la lucha por la descolonización y la independencia a esta singular coyuntura.

No es secreto para nadie que la estructura y el contenido de la consulta sobre status recoge la esencia de la propuesta hecha por el Partido Independentista ante el Comité de Diálogo sobre status creado por el Gobernador y que las raíces de esa postura se remontan a la propuesta que el PIP promovió en la legislatura en el 2005. En aquel momento, luego de reuniones con los entonces presidentes del PNP y el PPD, Pedro Rosselló y Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, respectivamente, se logró la aprobación unánime de una propuesta de referéndum cuyo elemento fundamental era la exigencia de un status político para Puerto Rico que no fuera colonial ni territorial. 

Como sabemos, el liderato del PPD, luego de la aprobación legislativa, violentó su palabra empeñada al Acevedo Vilá vetar el proyecto. La realidad es que el liderato del PPD le cogió miedo a las consecuencias en el Congreso de un voto mayoritario de rechazo al actual status territorial. No me cabe duda además de que una de las razones que llevó a Acevedo Vilá a acceder inicialmente a la propuesta del PIP era su convencimiento de que el PNP no habría de favorecerla. Subestimaron el grado hasta el cual el movimiento estadista puertorriqueño es prisionero de su propia retórica aunque las señales de hostilidad y rechazo por parte del Congreso a cualquier petición de anexión sean cada vez más evidentes.

Debe recordarse, para colocar en perspectiva el asunto, que al momento de entrar al Comité de Diálogo sobre status tanto el PNP como el PPD, inspirados en el Informe de la Casa Blanca del Presidente Obama, hicieron públicas sus propuestas para una consulta de status. El PNP propuso que se votara antes de las elecciones primero entre las alternativas de estadidad, independencia, y libre asociación, y que la que triunfara de éstas se enfrentara al Estado Libre Asociado en una segunda votación a llevarse a cabo luego de las elecciones en el 2013. La propuesta del PPD – que pintaba de cuerpo entero el inmovilismo congénito de la administración Obama – era que se votara primero entre las alternativas de seguir “siendo parte” de los Estados Unidos ya sea como ELA o como estado, o separarse de los Estados Unidos. De prevalecer la primera se votaría en una segunda ocasión entre la estadidad o el ELA. 

A estas propuestas del PPD y el PNP, sacadas del menú sugerido por el Informe de Casa Blanca, se les veía desde lejos el refajo. Iban directo hacia el callejón sin salida del inmovilismo sin que de ellas pudiera nunca emerger un voto claramente mayoritario de repudio al actual status territorial. Ambas propuestas tenían en común marginar y excluir al independentismo en el primer voto y producir un “empate virtual” entre el ELA y la estadidad en la segunda vuelta, permitiéndole así a los Estados Unidos concluir que como no hay un mandato claro el status actual debería prevalecer a corto y mediano plazo. El ELA prevalecería por confiscación y el Congreso no tendría que enfrentar un voto de repudio amplio a la condición territorial. Si alguien tenía dudas sobre lo anterior las despejó el propio Obama cuando comento públicamente a fines del 2011 que si no se producía un “mandato claro” de cambio, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos no habría de actuar con relación al status político de Puerto Rico. La jugada estaba cantada.

La propuesta del PIP ante el Comité de Diálogo, por el contrario, iba dirigida antes y primero que nada, a lograr articular una mayoría electoral en contra de la actual condición de subordinación política. Asumiendo que el status quo colonial fuera repudiado en la primera votación el país escogería entonces entre alternativas no sujetas a la cláusula territorial. Esta propuesta, en contraste con las “ratoneras de cantazo” que habían adelantado el PNP y el PPD, sí tenía el potencial de producir un resultado que el Congreso no pudiera ignorar y que fundamentara una iniciativa internacional de reclamo descolonizador.

Si bien es cierto que la segunda votación (entre las alternativas no territoriales) no habría de producir todavía una mayoría abrumadora (comparada con la totalidad de electores que participan en las elecciones) a favor de una de las alternativas concretas, sí produciría una mayoría clara en contra de la continuación del coloniaje. La intención era romperles el baile a los inmovilistas de adentro y de afuera. Ello explica porqué los Populares no querían tocar la consulta propuesta por el PIP ni con un palo largo puesto que se trata de hacer explícito el repudio al ELA territorial que existe y que el independentismo siempre ha denunciado como colonial e ilegítimo.

Es por ello también que de todas las alternativas procesales que examina el Informe de Casa Blanca (incluyendo las propuestas inicialmente favorecidas por el PNP y el PPD) a la única que le ponen peros es a la que incorpora los elementos que el PIP proponía. Resulta evidente que un proceso que pueda resultar en el repudio claro y mayoritario de la actual relación con los Estados Unidos (en vez de la justificación del inmovilismo) no va a ser favorecido por los Estados Unidos. Más razón, diría yo, para favorecerlo nosotros. Resultan pues patéticos –pero comprensibles- los lamentos del liderato del PPD de que la consulta ya aprobada no se ajusta a lo recomendado por la Casa Blanca.

Como ya se sabe, la propuesta del PIP, en su esencia, fue la que al final se aprobó. Parece haber prevalecido dentro del PNP una coalición entre aquellos que quieren confrontar al Congreso lo antes posible (contrario a las más timoratos y apocados) para forzarlo a tomar posición sobre la posibilidad de la estadidad, y aquellos que le veían ventajas de movilización electoral al tema ideológico en un día de elecciones generales. A fin de cuentas, como ocurre siempre en la política, cada cual o tiene su razón o tiene sus razones. El PIP sólo responde por las suyas. Después de todo, si la consulta ayuda o desayuda al PNP en las próximas elecciones está por verse. 

Nuestra obligación es combatir el colonialismo y fortalecer la lucha por la independencia. La pregunta, por lo tanto, es sencilla. ¿Contribuye a la lucha contra el colonialismo y por la independencia la participación en la próxima consulta sobre status?

Parto de la premisa de que en la primera pregunta los estadistas, los independentistas, y un número significativo de autonomistas indecisos votaremos en contra de la continuación de la actual condición territorial. Ello debe producir una mayoría con la cual podremos exigir –con más fuerza y fundamento que nunca– al Congreso de los Estados Unidos que le ponga fin a la condición de tiranía que resultaría evidenciada por el rechazo mayoritario a la continuación del coloniaje. Puertas hasta ahora cerradas o tímidamente entreabiertas en la comunidad internacional quedarán abiertas de par en par para que el independentismo pueda obtener logros en ese ámbito hasta ahora inasequibles. No le será ya siquiera posible a los Estados Unidos hacer el argumento de que los puertorriqueños consienten el coloniaje. Se acentuarán las contradicciones dentro del Partido Popular entre su sector inmovilista (hoy firmemente en el poder) y aquellos que aspiran a superar el actual régimen colonial con alguna forma no territorial de relación política con los Estados Unidos. El tema de la descolonización ocupará pues el espacio que le corresponde en nuestro quehacer como pueblo. 

Por supuesto que la consulta prevista no es el mecanismo que el derecho internacional sanciona para un ejercicio descolonizador. De hecho, uno de los propósitos de la consulta es precisamente fortalecer nuestro reclamo ante la comunidad internacional para que ésta apoye y se involucre en nuestro esfuerzo descolonizador. En todo caso, ni el PNP ni el PPD ni el gobierno de los Estados Unidos favorecen un proceso de transferencia de poderes conforme a la Resolución 1514 (XV) de Naciones Unidas, ni esta organización ha tomado los pasos necesarios para requerirlo, por lo cual si nosotros no actuamos para dinamizar el cambio a través de un repudio al actual status habremos de permanecer estancados en el inmovilismo colonial. De lo que se trata es precisamente de poner en marcha una iniciativa política disponible que genere condiciones más propicias para que pueda al fin lograrse la descolonización que requiere el derecho internacional y la independencia a que aspiramos los independentistas.

Bien examinado, no hay aspecto de esta consulta que no sea favorable para adelantar la descolonización y la independencia. Lo peor que pudiera ocurrir es que la mayoría votara porque no hubiera cambio. Estoy convencido de que eso no pasará y que en todo caso seguramente no pasará si todos los independentistas votamos no a la colonia. Si a pesar de ello prevaleciera el inmovilismo estaríamos entonces donde mismo estamos ahora. Las probabilidades sin embargo, especialmente si los independentistas todos repudiamos el status actual, son las contrarias, es decir, un triunfo del voto de rechazo a la subordinación política.

Demás está decir, si faltara algún argumento adicional, que de no darse la consulta el inmovilismo está garantizado. Si no hubiera consulta y el PNP triunfa en las elecciones tendría entonces que plantearse en enero de 2013 qué va a hacer con respecto a la estadidad y podría entonces revertir a su propuesta original que ya vimos conducirá al inmovilismo. Si ganara el PPD las elecciones, lo más que podría esperarse es una constituyente de pacotilla donde el liderato reaccionario del PPD ya ha anunciado que se limitaría a proponer reformas cosméticas al ELA colonial. Puede también ocurrir que el PPD gane la elección pero que los estadistas, - si ya son mayoría por aquello de lo del semillero – prevalezcan en la constituyente.

Ninguna de estas alternativas puede ser tan favorable para promover la descolonización y adelantar la lucha por la independencia como la celebración de la consulta en noviembre teniendo como resultado un voto mayoritario en contra del actual status territorial. No dudo además de que veremos también un voto fortalecido por la independencia. El futuro se habrá puesto en marcha.

DECLARACIÓN DEL PARTIDO INDEPENDENTISTA PUERTORRIQUEÑO ANTE POSTURA DEL PPD EN TORNO A LA CONSULTA DE STATUS

“Al decidir instruir a sus seguidores que voten Sí a la continuación del actual status colonial y territorial, el liderato del Partido Popular ha formalizado su declaración de bancarrota política. Al hacerlo, no solamente supera el record mundial de la ignominia colonial, sino que traiciona a todos aquellos populares que hace años vienen requiriéndole a su partido que repudie el carácter territorial del ELA y se comprometa con la descolonización.

El terror a ser señalados como críticos del actual régimen colonial y su voracidad presupuestaria, ha conducido al liderato del PPD a un servilismo incondicional e inédito en los anales del colonialismo. Se desconoce precedente alguno en que algún partido político haya pedido el voto a favor de una alternativa explícitamente colonial.

Por el honor y la dignidad de Puerto Rico, exhortamos a todos los puertorriqueños a que por encima de las diferencias con respecto al futuro, nos unamos todos el 6 de noviembre repudiando la continuación del coloniaje.”

VEA LA CONFERENCIA DE PRENSA AQUÍ: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/radio-pip

STATEMENT TO PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY POSITION PPD AROUND THE STATUS CONSULTATION

In San Juan. Puerto Rico. February 13, 2012 . - The Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP) made ​​the following statement to the position taken by the PP about the status query to be held on November 6:

"In deciding to instruct their followers to vote yes to the continuation of existing colonial and territorial status, the People's Party leadership has formalized its political bankruptcy. In doing so, not only surpasses the world record of colonial shame, but betrays all those popular years ago requiring you come to your party to repudiate the territorial nature of the Commonwealth and is committed to decolonization.

The terror of being identified as critics of colonial rule and its current budget greed has led to the PDP leadership and unconditional servility unprecedented in the annals of colonialism. It is not known precedent in which a political party has called for the vote for an alternative explicitly colonial.

For the honor and dignity of Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans call upon all to over differences about the future, we join all the 6 November repudiating the continuation of colonialism. "

Setting the Record Straight on the Puerto Rican Plebiscite

by

Rafael Cox-Alomar

as published in 

JURIST

JURIST Guest Columnist Rafael Cox-Alomar, the Popular Democratic Party candidate for Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, argues that Congressman Pedro Pierluisi’s recent JURIST article on the upcoming Puerto Rico status referendum fails to take into account another viable alternative to statehood that has greater support on the island and would allow greater preservation of social and cultural aspirations…

Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, in an article recently published in JURIST, “Puerto Rico Status Referendum is Historic,” (and on the Commissioner's website - OTR) has written an undeserved ode to the virtues of the Puerto Rico status plebiscite currently scheduled to be held on election day this coming November 6, 2012. 

This is not surprising, as the proposed plebiscite is Pierluisi’s consolation prize after Congress and the Obama administration rejected his attempt to hold a federally-sanctioned plebiscite in Puerto Rico designed to stack the deck in favor of statehood (introduced as HR 2499 in the 111th Congress). What is surprising is that, notwithstanding this rejection, statehood advocates have doubled-down locally on what they could not achieve at the federal level, pushing on Puerto Ricans a local status plebiscite that betrays traditional American notions of democracy and fair play.

In HR 2499, deceptively named the “Puerto Rico Democracy Act,” Pierluisi called for a federally-sanctioned status plebiscite solely designed with one purpose in mind: to artificially manufacture an electoral victory for statehood, a victory that that has so far eluded the island’s statehood movement ever since its inception in 1900. 

The plebiscite was structured as a two-round electoral process in which Puerto Ricans would first be asked to determine whether they were “satisfied” with the existing Commonwealth relationship (which is intentionally mischaracterized in the ballot as a territorial relationship bound by Congress’s plenary powers under the US Constitution’s Property Clause), followed by a second round in which Puerto Ricans would be able to choose between statehood, independence and a modality of associated independence, leaving the Commonwealth option completely off the ballot. 

The trick is simple: Commonwealth now commands a plurality, just short of an outright majority of the vote. By defeating Commonwealth on the first round, pro-statehood forces would be able to eliminate Commonwealth from the ballot entirely and manufacture a statehood victory with the support of less than a plurality of the electorate.

Both Congress and President Obama were wary outcome-determinative nature of the proposed set up and killed the so-called “Puerto Rico Democracy Act.” The White House Task Force Report, which Pierluisi extensively cites, states in no uncertain terms that “removing the Commonwealth option [from the ballot] would raise real questions about the vote’s legitimacy.” 

In fact, the report explicitly considered, and rejected, Pierluisi’s proposed approach in HR 2499, highlighting that “how the votes are ordered may favor one outcome over others.” More importantly, the report did not, as Pierluisi claims, conclude that enhanced Commonwealth status was not a “viable status option.” 

To the contrary: the Task Force Report explicitly contemplates avenues of growth for Commonwealth status, including the possibility of congressional legislation that would establish a process by which Puerto Rico could obtain relief from specific Federal laws, or enhance authority for the government of Puerto Rico to join certain international organizations and to engage in international cultural and economic outreach efforts so long as such activities were authorized by the Federal Government as consistent with the foreign relations of the United States.

Notwithstanding the clear presidential message sent by Task Force Report, statehood advocates have decided to push forward with a discredited approach. Pierluisi attempts to sidestep the implications of the report by acknowledging that the upcoming referendum may not be “the only possible way to structure a self-determination process.” But Law 283, the legislation authorizing the local plebiscite that Pierluisi champions, is a carbon copy of HR 2499, preserving the delegitimized two-step process designed to make Puerto Rico the fifty-first US state by procedurally decapitating Commonwealth status.

More cynically, the plebiscite will be held on the same date as the gubernatorial election, a fact that some political analysts have identified as a ploy to boost statehood-supporter turnout and, consequently, the electoral prospects of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party, which, according to all recent public polling, is expected to be swept out of office due to severe ongoing recession and record crimes rates in Puerto Rico.

The most alarming aspect of the proposed plebiscite, couched as an opportunity for Puerto Ricans to exercise their right to self-determination, is that it would keep the plurality of Puerto Ricans from exercising that right. Any fair self-determination process must include the option of an enhanced Commonwealth, the status alternative that has been consistently favored by the people of Puerto Rico and that has won each status plebiscite celebrated on the island. 

Pierluisi’s article neglects to mention that Puerto Ricans favored the enhancement of the present Commonwealth relationship over statehood and independence in the 1967 and 1993 plebiscites. In the 1998 plebiscite, another electoral farce rigged to deliver a statehood victory by (again) excluding the option of enhanced Commonwealth, the “None of the Above” option, supported by Commonwealth advocates, prevailed with more than 50 percent of the vote (this “None of the Above” option has been conveniently removed from Law 283). 

Voters have consistently backed enhanced Commonwealth status because it balances competing economic, social and cultural aspirations. The majority of Puerto Ricans have consistently rejected statehood precisely because statehood fails to fulfill these aspirations. The fact that statehood advocates, like Pierluisi, disagree with the democratic will of the Puerto Rican people does not give them the right to undermine it.

Unable to beat Commonwealth through the ballot box, opponents have worked hard to delegitimize it. In particular, they have constructed artificial legal and constitutional roadblocks to the enhancement or development of Commonwealth status. But the only barrier to the development this status is the political will of Congress at a certain point in time, not manufactured and allegedly immutable constitutional impediments.

Pierluisi claims that the November status referendum “will be a meaningful vote with real implications for Puerto Rico’s political future.” The reality is that Congress and the president will rightfully ignore the results of a process it has already rejected as biased, flawed and undemocratic. All Puerto Ricans agree that the present political status must change, but they disagree vigorously as to the nature and direction of such change. Puerto Rico deserves a process that allows all Puerto Ricans to meaningfully exercise their right to vote and that honors America’s democratic traditions. The proposed plebiscite is only “historic” in the fraud it perpetrates on the Puerto Rican and American people.

Rafael Cox-Alomar is the 2012 Popular Democratic Party candidate for Resident Commissioner, Puerto Rico’s nonvoting delegate to the US House of Representatives. He is running against incumbent Pedro Pierluisi in November. Cox-Alomar has worked on dispute resolution and transactional cases since graduating from Harvard Law School in 2004. He is also the author of Revisiting the Transatlantic Triangle: The Constitutional Decolonization of the Eastern Caribbean.

¿CIEN AÑOS DE PARTIDOS INDEPENDENTISTAS?: Reflexiones en torno a un centenario

ATENEO PUERTORRIQUEÑO 

COMUNICADO DE PRENSA

¿CIEN AÑOS DE PARTIDOS INDEPENDENTISTAS?:

Reflexiones en torno a un centenario

El presidente del Ateneo Puertorriño Puertorriqueño, Dr. José Milton Soltero y el director de la Sección de Ciencias Políticas, Dr. José Javier Colón, los invitan al conversatorio ¿Cien Años de partidos Independentistas? Reflexiones en torno a un centenario. Con la participación del Dr. Rafael Bernabe y el Dr. Félix Córdoba Iturregui. La actividad se llevará a cabo este próximo sábado, 17 de marzo de 2012 a las 3:00 de la tarde en la Biblioteca del Ateneo.

Este año se celebran cien años de la fundación del Partido de la Independencia,  primer partido político en la historia de Puerto Rico cuyo objetivo principal fue luchar por la consecución de la independencia. Para analizar el significado de este esfuerzo, iniciado por líderes como Rosendo Matienzo Cintrón, Eugenio Benítez Castaño y Luis Llorens Torres tendremos la participación de dos importantes estudiosos del siglo XX puertorriqueño: los profesores Rafael Bernabe y Félix Córdoba Iturregui. Este primer partido independentista defendió un programa de soberanía política atado a una propuesta social de avanzada e hizo contribuciones importantes a la historia de este movimiento.

Rafael Bernabe

Estudió historia en la Universidad de Princeton, Sociología en la del Estado de Nueva York e investiga literatura en la de Puerto Rico. Es autor de los libros "Respuestas al colonialismo en la política puertorriqueña, 1899-1929"; "La maldición de Pedreira", "Manual para organizar velorios", "Puerto Rico, ¿un pueblo acorralado por la historia?" y co-autor de "Puerto Rico en el siglo americano: su historia desde 1898". 

Félix Córdova Iturregui

Estudió su bachillerato en la Universidad de Puerto Rico y obtuvo su doctorado en literatura en la Universidad de Princeton. En la actualidad, es catedrático en elDepartamento de Estudios Hispánicos de la UPR, Recinto de Río Piedras. Es autor de los poemarios Para llenar de días el día (1985), Militancia contra la soledad (1987), y Canto a la desobediencia (1998).También, ha escrito dos libros de cuentos: El rabo de lagartija de aquel famoso señor rector y otros cuentos de orilla (1986) y Sobre esta difícil tierra (1993). En el 2005 publicó El sabor del tiempo y en el 2009, Los hilos de la sombra, ambas novelas. Ha dedicado también un notable esfuerzo al estudio de la historia de Puerto Rico; y en el 2007 publicó Ante la frontera del infierno: el impacto social de las huelgas azucareras y portuarias de 1905.

Esta es la segunda del Ciclo de Conferencias de la Sección de Ciencias Políticas. La primera trabajó la pertinencia de  los postulados de Betances, Hostos y Martí en el Siglo XXI.

Para información puede comunicarse al 787-721-3877. La entrada es libre de costo.

Marshall Islands criticizes U.S. over nuclear compensation

‘Exploding epidemic of cancer cases,’ 

$2 billion 

in unpaid claims.

By Giff Johnson

Marianas Variety

Marshall Islanders accused the United States government of refusing to provide adequate nuclear test compensation on the 58th anniversary of the largest American hydrogen bomb test that exposed thousands of islanders to radioactive fallout.


Islanders marked the national holiday in the Marshall Islands for March 1 with a candlelight vigil for those who suffered and died as a result of the 67 U.S. tests at Bikini and Enewetak.


U.S. Ambassador to the Marshall Islands Martha Campbell told the event in Majuro Thursday evening that "the United States has provided nearly $600 million in compensation and assistance to the Republic of the Marshall Islands to help the affected communities overcome the effects of nuclear testing," and noted that the U.S. and Marshall Islands governments had agreed to "a full and final settlement of all nuclear-related claims" in 1983.


But Foreign Minister Phillip Muller called on the United States to pay the more than $2 billion in unpaid awards made by a Nuclear Claims Tribunal that exhausted its U.S. government-provided funding.


"Today we are witnessing an exploding epidemic of cancer cases," said Charles Domnick, an islander who was 12 years old and living on an island about 400 miles downwind when the U.S. detonated Bravo, a 15-megaton hydrogen bomb test at Bikini. "Cancers, birth anomalies and other radiogenic diseases make a compelling argument for the United States to reopen the nuclear issue," Domnick said. "But because our population is limited, the United States takes the position these numbers are statistically insignificant and that we have in fact received compensation for all damages past, present and future."


Domnick criticized the settlement agreement reached nearly 30 years ago as unfair to the Marshall Islands. "What kind of a champion of democracy would have the callousness to demand from people it injures forgiveness for all future liabilities?" he said.

Muller said the Marshall Islands was "insulted" that the U.S. government chose March 1 as the date to announce a missile test launch between Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and the Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands. He said it was "an unfortunate date" for the U.S. to schedule a Minuteman missile test. The U.S. announced the test last week, but on Wednesday cancelled the launch.

Upcoming Puerto Rico political status referendum termed 'historic'

Guest Columnist Pedro Pierluisi, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, representing the territory in the US House of Representatives, argues that the coming Puerto Rico status referendum is historic because it is the first to include only the viable status options and will be taken seriously by the federal government…

In December 2011, Puerto Rico’s legislature approved, and Governor Luis Fortuño signed, Law 283. This legislation provides for a referendum — alternatively referred to as a plebiscite — to be held on the US territory’s political status. The plebiscite will take place on November 6, 2012, the same day as the US general elections and Puerto Rico’s local elections.

The plebiscite ballot will consist of two questions. Voters will first be asked whether they want the current territory status to continue. Regardless of how voters answer that question, they will then be asked to express their preference among the three alternatives to the current status: statehood, independence and nationhood in free association with the US.

If a majority of Puerto Rico voters in November cast their ballots in opposition to the current status, and in support of one of the alternatives, Puerto Rico’s local officials can be expected to petition the federal government to act upon that choice. For example, if statehood obtains majority support, then Puerto Rico’s single representative in the US Congress — known as the Resident Commissioner, a position I have held since January 2009 — will likely introduce legislation that would place Puerto Rico on the path to statehood, phasing in equal treatment for the island under federal law. As with other bills, this legislation would be subject to amendment and require the approval of Congress and the signature of the president.

To fully comprehend the merits of Law 283, some legal and historical background is in order. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, known as the Territory Clause, gives Congress the power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” In 1789, the first Congress adopted the Northwest Ordinance, which provided a template for the future treatment of US territories. As former US Attorney General Dick Thornburgh has observed, the Northwest Ordinance “assumed that a geographic area’s designation as a ‘territory’ of the United States was a temporary status that would ultimately lead” to that territory becoming a state. For over a century, the Northwest Ordinance prototype was followed, with many jurisdictions evolving from territories to states over time.

However, the Northwest Ordinance model was set aside for Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, which the US acquired from Spain in the 1898 Treaty of Paris that ended the Spanish-American War. Article IX of the Treaty stated: 

“The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by Congress.” 

Under the treaty, Spain also relinquished sovereignty over Cuba. However, because the federal government had previously disclaimed any intent to exercise permanent sovereignty over Cuba, the treaty provided that the US would temporarily “occupy” the island until its independence.

Debate raged in turn-of-the-century America as to how the US should treat its newly-acquired territories. In Puerto Rico, after a brief period of military government, the federal government enacted an “organic act,” the Foraker Act of 1900 which created a civilian government on the island. The government was led by a governor appointed by the US president. Two legislative chambers were established: a non-elected Executive Council and a popularly-elected House of Delegates. The Foraker Act also authorized the election of a Resident Commissioner (who, two years later, was given a seat in the US House of Representatives). The law did not confer US citizenship upon residents of Puerto Rico.

Between 1901 and 1922, the US Supreme Court decided a series of controversial cases regarding its island territories, known as the Insular Cases. Two of the most important decisions in the series are Downes v. Bidwell in 1901 and Balzac v. Porto Rico in 1922. In Downes, the Court held that Puerto Rico had been acquired by the US but not “incorporated” as part of the US. Thus, the Court conceived — out of thin air, critics have charged — a binary world of “incorporated” and “unincorporated” territories. An incorporated territory was one on the path to eventual statehood in the well-worn Northwest Ordinance tradition. By contrast, an unincorporated territory like Puerto Rico was one whose ultimate status — statehood or nationhood — Congress had yet to decide.

The distinction between classification as an incorporated territory and classification as an unincorporated territory has additional significance, because the Court in the early Insular Cases held that only those rights in the Bill of Rights that are found to be “fundamental” apply automatically (that is, even in the absence of federal legislation conferring such rights) in unincorporated territories. For example, the Court has held that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury is not fundamental and therefore does not need to be furnished to criminal defendants in unincorporated territories.

In 1917, the federal government extended US citizenship to residents of Puerto Rico in the Jones-Shafroth Act. The legislation also established a bill of rights for the territory and provided for a popularly-elected Senate. Five years later, the Supreme Court decided the case of Balzac v. Porto Rico. Many critics of the earlier Insular Cases had taken a measure of comfort in the assumption that Puerto Rico’s status as an unincorporated territory would be temporary, lasting only until such time as the federal government granted Island residents US citizenship (which would presumably set Puerto Rico on the path to statehood) or granted the island’s independence. 

In Balzac, however, the Court held that the grant of citizenship in the Jones Act did not demonstrate intent by Congress to incorporate Puerto Rico as part of the US. Balzac is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Rassmussen v. United States, where the Court interpreted the grant of citizenship to residents of Alaska as the key evidence that Congress intended to incorporate that territory into the Union. Thus, to the chagrin of many, the Insular Cases made clear that Puerto Rico’s judicially-created status as an unincorporated territory could last indefinitely.

As has been noted, during the first two decades of the twentieth century the federal government took successive steps to grant the government of Puerto Rico increased authority over local matters. This process continued over time. In 1947, for example, federal law was amended to provide for the territory’s governor to be popularly elected. In 1950, the federal government authorized the island to draft a local constitution, which took effect in 1952 (after Congress required certain modifications). All told, Congress has now delegated to Puerto Rico roughly the same degree of authority over local matters that the states possess. Nevertheless, these measures have not altered Puerto Rico’s fundamental status. Rather, the island remains an unincorporated territory of the US, subject to Congress’s plenary power under the Territory Clause.

The Spanish-language version of the Puerto Rico Constitution named the territory the “Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico” — which translates literally as the “Freely Associated State of Puerto Rico.” However, since Puerto Rico was not a freely associated state as that term is defined by international law, the delegates to Puerto Rico’s constitutional convention resolved that the English-language name of the polity would be the “Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.” As federal authorities have emphasized, this term — Commonwealth — “does not describe or provide for any specific political status or relationship.” This is evidenced by the fact that four US states — Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia — and one of Puerto Rico’s sister territories — the Northern Mariana Islands — are also self-designated as “Commonwealths.”

Territory status has inherent and indisputable defects. Puerto Rico’s 3.7 million residents lack the most basic right in a democracy: the ability to elect voting representatives in the government that makes their national laws. Although island residents participate in the presidential nomination process, which is governed by party rules, they cannot vote for president in the general elections. Puerto Rico has no representation in the US Senate. And the territory’s lone representative in the US House, the Resident Commissioner, can introduce legislation and vote in committee, but cannot vote on the final disposition of legislation. On a daily basis, the three branches of the federal government make decisions that have a direct impact on Puerto Rico, where federal law is supreme, but the Island has little voice (and no vote) in that decision-making process.

Beyond denying Puerto Rico full self-government, territory status enables the federal government to enact and administer laws that treat island residents less favorably than residents of the states. To take one of many possible examples, consider the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which provides monthly cash assistance to blind, disabled or elderly individuals who have limited or no income. SSI applies in the states, the District of Columbia, and one territory. Despite efforts by numerous Puerto Rico officials, Congress has chosen not to extend the program to the island, leaving its most vulnerable residents without an adequate safety net.

The courts uphold federal laws that treat Puerto Rico unequally as long as the federal government can demonstrate that there is a rational basis for the disparate treatment, the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny. The federal government can satisfy this test by asserting that equal treatment would be expensive or that, pursuant to an act of Congress, residents of Puerto Rico are not required to pay federal taxes on income they earn on the island. This income tax argument has carried the day in court even though island residents are required to pay federal taxes on income earned outside of Puerto Rico and all federal payroll taxes. In 2010, the US Internal Revenue Service collected $3.6 billion in individual income taxes, employment taxes and business income taxes in Puerto Rico, which is more than the IRS collected in one state and not significantly less than it collected in at least four other states. The income tax rationale for disparate treatment also disregards the fact that over half of all households in the 50 states — including most if not all households that benefit from federal aid programs like SSI — do not earn enough to pay federal income taxes, yet still receive equal treatment from their national government.

Puerto Rico’s political status has been — and remains today — the central issue in the territory’s political life. Although Puerto Rico is a US jurisdiction, the island’s three political parties are not divided along traditional Democratic and Republican lines, but rather based on their views on the status question. One party, the New Progressive Party, favors statehood. Another party — as passionate as, but much smaller than the other two parties — advocates independence, the Puerto Rico Independence Party. The third party, the Popular Democratic Party, prefers the current status over either statehood or independence. At the same time, this party champions a proposal which its members often describe as an “enhanced” version of the current status, but which is in fact fundamentally different than the current status.

In May 2009, HR 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, was introduced in the US House of Representatives. The bill would have provided for a federally-sponsored, two-step plebiscite process in Puerto Rico where voters would choose among the current status, statehood, independence and nationhood in free association with the US. Statehood and independence are widely understood. Under free association, Puerto Rico would become a sovereign nation, but would have a negotiated agreement with the US that sets forth the terms of the relationship between the two nations. As with any agreement between sovereign nations, the agreement could be unilaterally terminated by either party — as denoted by the “free” in free association. The US currently has compacts of free association with three nations that it formerly administered under the UN trusteeship system — the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau. Under the compacts, these small Pacific-island countries receive assistance under a limited number of federal domestic programs. Residents of the freely associated states may enter the US without restriction, but they are not American citizens. There is a bloc of voters in Puerto Rico that advocates free association for the island, one that draws its support primarily from a faction within the Popular Democratic Party.

HR 2499 provided for the results of the plebiscite process to be certified to Congress, but — in contrast to Puerto Rico status bills that passed the House in 1990 and 1998 — did not itemize the steps to be taken by Congress in the event that a majority of island residents voted for a change in status. In April 2010, HR 2499 was approved by the House in a strong bipartisan vote. Although the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources subsequently held a hearing on HR 2499, further action on the bill did not take place.

It is important to understand that, while Congress would need to act to change Puerto Rico’s status, the island does not require Congress’s prior approval to hold a plebiscite. The Puerto Rico government has already held three plebiscites authorized under local, as opposed to federal, law — in July 1967, November 1993 and December 1998. Why, then, did the Puerto Rico government first attempt to obtain congressional sponsorship for a plebiscite, rather than move immediately to enact local legislation to provide for a fourth plebiscite organized under Puerto Rico law — which is ultimately what came to pass with Law 283?

There were two primary reasons. First, some island residents are skeptical that Congress would consent to a change in the island’s status if Puerto Rico sought one. When the House voted to approve HR 2499, it strongly reaffirmed that it will take seriously the results of any fair plebiscite held on the island. Accordingly, the November 2012 plebiscite authorized by Law 283 will not be a mere “beauty contest.” To the contrary, it will be a meaningful vote with real implications for Puerto Rico’s political future.

The second reason that Puerto Rico chose to pursue a “Washington-first” strategy is even more fundamental. It was essential for Congress to clarify — once and for all — the possible alternatives to the current territory status, since there was still uncertainty in Puerto Rico on this score. As alluded to above, this confusion stems from the fact that one political party in Puerto Rico has promoted a legally impossible and politically unrealistic status proposal — often called “Enhanced Commonwealth.”

Under the “Enhanced Commonwealth” proposal, Puerto Rico would be treated as a nation, but in an association with the US. Unlike under free association, however, residents of Puerto Rico would be granted US citizenship in perpetuity and the island would continue to receive at least as much federal assistance as it does now. At the same time, Puerto Rico would have the power to nullify application of federal laws (except in certain cases) and to limit federal court jurisdiction (in most cases). In addition, Puerto Rico could join international organizations and enter into international agreements. Finally, the association would be “permanent” — meaning that the US could not withdraw from it or modify its terms without Puerto Rico’s consent.

As the House Committee on Natural Resources observed in its October 2009 report on HR 2499, “proposals for such a governing arrangement have been consistently opposed by federal authorities in the executive and legislative branches ... on both constitutional and policy grounds.” The committee report also noted that, as a result of these proposals, the three prior plebiscites in Puerto Rico had been “misinformed and inconclusive.” The committee concluded that HR 2499 would “clarify the viable status options and thereby ensure that the self-determination process is well-informed and productive.”

Through House passage of HR 2499, therefore, Congress confirmed that Puerto Rico has four — and only four — valid status options: the current territory status, statehood, independence and free association. Moreover, in the wake of the successful House vote, the Chairman and Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources sent a letter to President Obama expressing their view that the status options set forth in HR 2499 are the only choices available to Puerto Rico. And, in March 2011, the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, created by executive order  in 2000 and consisting of representatives from 18 federal agencies, issued a comprehensive report that reached the same conclusion. The report stated explicitly that the “Enhanced Commonwealth” proposal is not a viable status option, the same conclusion that had been reached by the Clinton administration in 2000  and 2001  and by the George W. Bush administration in 2005  and 2007. While it is inevitable that some Puerto Rico politicians will continue to promote “Enhanced Commonwealth,” it is clear to reasonable observers that this proposal has finally been dealt a knockout blow.

President Obama and the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination have all expressed strong support for Puerto Rico self-determination. President Obama traveled to the island in June 2011 and delivered a speech that stated: “When the people of Puerto Rico make a clear decision, my administration will stand by you.” On the Republican side, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former US Senator Rick Santorum have all made similar commitments.

For over a century, resolution of Puerto Rico’s status question has proven elusive. Not unreasonably, this has led to a degree of cynicism among island residents, who wonder whether, years from now, their grandchildren will be having the same impassioned, but seemingly fruitless, debates that were taking place 50 years ago. However, in the last two years, we have witnessed important progress on this issue, culminating in the enactment of Law 283. Unlike the three prior status votes in Puerto Rico, the ballot in this year’s plebiscite, like the ballot called for in HR 2499, will include only those options identified as valid by the federal government. Genuine self-determination must be a choice among real options, not an exercise in wishful thinking.

Besides marking the first time that Puerto Rico voters will be given the chance to express their views among just the valid options, the two-step plebiscite also represents the first time that island residents will have the opportunity to answer “Yes” or “No” to the threshold question of whether they support the status they have enjoyed (or endured) since 1898. This question has intrinsic value in a democracy, where a government’s legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed. If a majority of Puerto Rico voters expresses satisfaction with the current status, Puerto Rico’s status would not change at this time. In that case, the answer to the second question, asking voters which of the three alternatives they prefer, will serve to inform officials in San Juan and Washington about where Puerto Rico may be headed in the future.

However, if a majority expresses a desire to change the current status, then the second question takes on greater significance. If none of the three non-territory options obtains a majority, voters have demonstrated that they are dissatisfied with the current status, but cannot yet agree on what should replace it. And if a majority votes against the current status, and then in favor of an alternative, federal action that honors this choice should begin.

Is the two-step process provided for in Law 283 the only possible way to structure the self-determination process? Of course not. But is it a fair, reasonable and historic process whose results will be taken seriously by the federal government? Absolutely.

(Resident Commissioner) Pedro Pierluisi, a member of the US Democratic Party and the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico, is Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner in the US House of Representatives. He is a member of the Judiciary, Ethics and Natural Resources committees. From 1993 to 1996, Pierluisi served as Puerto Rico’s Attorney General. Congressman Pierluisi would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by his Legislative Director, John Laufer, in preparing this article.

**********

This is why Puerto Rico is still a colony! 

Compañeros Unidos para la Descolonización 

de Puerto Rico:  Cita Patriótica ONU Junio 2012

Puerto Rico Status Referendum is Historic - Hispanically Speaking News

Puerto Rico (PR) has been a colony of the United States (US) for 114 years, because PR’s two principal political parties have helped to make it so!

In the attached article, our Resident Commissioner (RC) in the US House of Representatives categorized the October 6, 2012 Status Plebiscite as “historic”! It is, he said, because, for the first time in our history, the options offered are ones that the US can accept.

That is precisely the problem with having the imperial power managing the decolonization process. The empire is not the one to decide what the colony will be in a decolonization process. This is precisely why the imperial power does not have jurisdiction. And this is precisely why the RC does not mention that the US does not. He is not being honest!

PR is the only one who decides what PR will be without any outside influence. The reason why the US has not recognized the United Nation’s (UN) jurisdiction is because she wants to direct PR's decision to what she wants. Since the RC favors statehood for PR, he ignores International Law and speaks in this long article about only US jurisprudence. But that has nothing to do with PR decolonization!

The RC is aware that the only decision that the US can make is whether she will grant statehood to PR should that be the way the voting goes. But, since the RC is afraid of not getting the vote for statehood in a PR assembly to discuss what PR wants, he refuses to recognize also, UN’s jurisdiction. So interesting enough, the US and the party that wants to be the next state of the Union are the ones that are afraid to put democracy in operation. They love talking about other countries lack of democracy, but they hide their own. Both would rather engage PR in a procedure where they can steer PR to what they want, instead of what PR wants. Not exactly, “justice for all!”

This is why, a boycott is needed to unmask this false democracy in Puerto Rico and decolonize PR according to International Law. But for that, we need your help. We hope to see you at the UN in June!