French Polynesia political leader addresses United Nations

Address of Mr. Oscar Manutahi TEMARU

Statement to Special Committee on Decolonization

U.N. Special Committee on Decolonization

Mr. Chairman, members of the Special Committee on Decolonization,

I am honored to address the Special Committee on Decolonization in my capacity as an elected member of the House of Assembly of Ma’ohi Nui / French Polynesia from the Group “Union Pour La Démocratie” (U.P.L.D.) which I have been leading since 2004. I present to you and the members of the Special Committee the warmest regards from the people of Ma’ohi Nui/French Polynesia. We congratulate you and the other members of the Bureau on being elected to lead the work of this Committee. We also wish to extend our gratitude to your predecessor Ambassador Diego Morejón who assisted us immensely in our re-inscription on the U.N. list of non self-governing territories with the adoption of Resolution 67/265 of 17th May 2013, and the subsequent adoption of Resolution 68/93 on 11th December 2013 on the "Question of French Polynesia."

Mr. Chairman,

On 17th May 2014 - exactly one year after the re-inscription - thousands of our people moved throughout the towns and villages of Tahiti in a coordinated march in commemoration of this historic event which has provided us with the opportunity to engage in a process of self-determination under the watchful eye and with the technical support of the United Nations.

A series of activities were undertaken nationwide, including marches, demonstrations and vigils, to celebrate this monumental achievement which served to permit our engagement with the international community after the long period of 'dependency in the periphery' due to the unilateral de-listing of our territory in 1963 without U.N. concurrence. The men, women, children, and disabled from all walks of life began their journey from several points throughout the island of Tahiti over the course of several days under blazing sun, finally converging on the city of Faa’a in the late afternoon.

There, in a prominent ceremony, the permanent memorial to our re-inscription was unveiled symbolizing the relentless efforts of our people and a major milestone for a struggle that I started here, in New-York in 1978, as a simple citizen of my country to petition against the French nuclear testing, trying to gain international support for our struggle to overcome colonialism in our country.

This permanent memorial to our re-inscription also serves as solemn acknowledgement of the support provided by the international community, and especially the smallest of our brother Pacific countries, who stood with us as we pursued this important step towards the exercise of our right to self-determination. It is also a testament to the role of the international community in this quest highlighted by the strong backing of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) which maintains self-determination as part of its DNA. We are deeply grateful for the sustained reference to our right to self-determination as set forth in the Seventeenth Ministerial Conference of the Non Aligned Movement held in Algiers last May. We are pleased that the sustained efforts of the NAM on our behalf are duly recognized in the draft resolution on the Question of French Polynesia (L.16) presently before you.

We are now under the purview of the United Nations decolonization process pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Charter which highlights the responsibility of the administering powers to prepare the territories for full self-government consistent with international law. We fully expect that France, as the administering power, will live up to its international legal obligations in this regard. It is regrettable, however, that the administering power has failed to transmit information on our territory this year pursuant to its obligation under Article 73 (e) of the U.N. Charter. The international community cannot simply countenance such pretense as if the consensus resolution of re-inscription had never been adopted. If countries are allowed to pick and choose which parts of the U.N. Charter they would implement, and which parts they would not, then their aggressive claims of adherence to the international ‘rule of law’ in other international scenarios ring particularly hollow. 

We therefore appreciate the inclusion of the reference in the draft resolution to the failure by the administering Power to submit information on our territory. We fully expect France to meet its international legal obligations in transmitting information on French Polynesia as they did following a similar delay in transmission of information on New Caledonia one year after its re-inscription in 1986.

Mr. Chairman,

We are pleased that as a newly-listed territory the broad range of decolonization resolutions has become applicable to our territory. In this regard, we take note of the draft resolution (L.9) adopted by this Committee on Tuesday on the Implementation of the Decolonization Declaration with its varied provisions, in particular, the operative paragraph which recognizes the "inalienable rights of the people of the non self-governing territories to their natural resources," and their right to establish and maintain control over the future development of those resources."

This language mirrors longstanding text of U.N and Law of the Sea resolutions, and U.N. legal opinions, and the applicability of this doctrine is critical to the disposition of our marine resources comprising some five million square kilometres of ocean. Studies from Japan, and official report from the French Senate from April 2014 clearly establish that vast amounts of minerals and rare earth lie on the seabed of Maohi Nui.

In view of this clear authority the rule of law must prevail since the powers unilaterally exercised by the French State are used to limit the territory's scope and authority in relation to these resources. France is member of the International Seabed Authority. All our independent brothers and cousins from the South Pacific are also members of I.S.A. We are not. We therefore fully expect that in the course of the self-determination process our internationally recognized ownership and control of the resources is given effect.

Technology to reach these seabed resources is already available. Our administering power is already in the process of planning exploitation and has established a special committee on strategic minerals (COMES) in which we again have no say. Without real recognition of our ownership on these resources, and without control over immigration, we are bound to become the powerless spectators of yet another pillaging, as has been the case for over 30 years during the French exploitation of phosphates on the island of Makatea in our Tuamotu archipelago.

Job seekers from France will flock to our islands, and easily saturate our job market, leaving our People and our children with only the scraps. This very sad scenario has already happened throughout the history of mankind.

Mr. Chairman,

On the issue of the impact of the nuclear testing, we take note of the reference in draft resolution L.16 to Resolution 68/93 adopted last December requesting the Secretary-General, "in cooperation with relevant specialized agencies, to compile a report on the environmental, ecological, health and other impacts as a consequence of the 30-year period of nuclear testing in the territory.” We are disappointed that the Secretary General’s report was not made available for the consideration of the Special Committee during this substantive session. We trust that the delay is only due to the need for more time to do a credible report on an issue of great significance to our people. We are, however, keeping our "eyes wide open" - and we ask this Committee to do likewise - owing to the type of maneuvers which could be used to hinder the completion of such a report.

In the interim, we draw attention to the Independent Report on the French Nuclear Testing in French Polynesia (January 2014) that is intended for publication as a General Assembly document to advance the knowledge of member states on the issue. We are confident that this study would be useful to the Committee in assessing the implementation of the resolution on French Polynesia. We are grateful for the reference in L.16 to the linkage made with the Fourth Committee agenda item on the "Effects of atomic radiation " where the report of the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation is considered. It is our hope that the Scientific Committee would consider the inclusion of French Polynesia in its programme of work.

As a reminder we would like to recall that when it seized the two atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa where the nuclear testing took place, France had agreed to give them back when those testing would be over. Since 1996 to this day, this agreement has not been respected and the atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa remain military property of France where the question of conducting truly independent surveys remain problematic.

In conclusion, we look forward to working with the Special Committee in this most important phase of implementation of the various elements of the decolonization mandate.

Thank you, te aroha ia rahi.

French U.N. delegates avoid U.N. debate on French Polynesia

Special to Overseas Territories Review

"The United Nations has begun to intensify its focus on the extensive unilateral authority exercised by the French Government over the affairs of French Polynesia in classic colonial fashion. Nevetheless, France stubbornly insists that this dependency model it calls 'autonomy' is somehow 'self-governing' and refuses to meet its international legal obligations to provide information to the U.N. on these political arrangements which do not meet even the minumum of self-governance standards."  - An international decolonisation expert.

_________________________

WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE RUSHING OFF?

Delegates from the Government of France hasten to leave the United Nations conference room to avoid the U.N. Decolonisation Committee debate on French Polynesia. The French Government representatives had just given an extensive presentation on their role in New Caledonia but refused to participate in the subsequent debate on French Polynesia, the other French colony on the U.N. list of non self-governing territories. French Polynesia was re-inscribed on the U.N. list  by the United Nations General Assembly through a consensus resolution in May 2013. One year later, France has refused to provide any information to the United Nations on the governance of the colony in violation of Article 73 (e) of the United Nations Charter.

Resolution 67/265 Self-determination of French Polynesia

The United Nations General Assembly,

Affirms the inalienable right of the people of French Polynesia to self-determination and independence in accordance with Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), recognizes that French Polynesia remains a Non-Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter, and declares that an obligation exists under Article 73 e of the Charter on the part of the Government of France, as the administering Power of the Territory, to transmit information on French Polynesia.

17th May 2013

U.N. Committee adopts resolutions on French, New Zealand territories

27 June 2014

General Assembly GA/COL/3272

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Special Committee on Decolonization                        

9^th Meeting (AM)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION CONCLUDES 2014 SESSION, APPROVINGDRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON NEW CALEDONIA, TOKELAU, FRENCH POLYNESIA

The Special Committee on Decolonization today concluded its 2014 substantive session with the approval, without a vote, of three draft resolutions, including one calling on France, New Caledonia’s administering Power, to consider developing an education programme to inform the people in the Territory about the nature of self-determination and prepare them for a future decision on the matter.

By other terms of that expansive text, introduced by Papua New Guinea’s representative (document A/AC.109/2014/L.12), the Assembly would urge all concerned parties, in the interest of the people there and within the framework of the 1998 Nouméa Accord, to promote peaceful progress towards an act of self-determination with all options open.  It would encourage France to guarantee the inalienable right of the people to own, access, use and manage their natural resources, including proprietary rights for their future development.

Further by the text, the Assembly would note the concerns regarding challenges in the provincial elections process, and encourage the administering Power and the people of New Caledonia to address those amicably under the relevant laws in the Territory and in France, in line with the Noumea Accord.  It would commend the recommendations of the United Nations visiting mission to the Government of France and of New Caledonia for appropriate action.

A draft resolution on the question of Tokelau (document A/AC.109/2014/L.15) would have the Assembly acknowledge the decision of the General Fono in 2008 that consideration of any future act of self-determination by Tokelau would be deferred, and that New Zealand and Tokelau would focus on enhancing essential services and infrastructure on the atolls.

A related provision would have the Assembly recallthe adoption by Tokelau of its National Strategic Plan for 2010-2015, and commend the achievement in 2013 of 60 per cent of the Plan’s objectives, including completion of the Tokelau Renewable Energy Project with the support of the administering Power.

The text on the question of French Polynesia (document A/AC.109/2014/L.16) would have the Assembly express regret that France had not responded to the request to submit information on French Polynesia under Article 73 (e)of the United Nations Charter, and call on it to intensify its dialogue with French Polynesia to facilitate rapid progress towards a fair and effective self-determination process.

Reaffirming that it was up to the people of French Polynesia to determine freely their future political status, in line with relevant texts, the Assembly would call on the administering Power, in cooperation with the territorial Government and appropriate bodies of the United Nations system, to develop political education programmes for the Territory in order to foster an awareness of the people’s right to self-determination in accordance with legitimate options.

Following a presentation by Amadu Koroma (Sierra Leone) on the United Nations visiting mission to New Caledonia from 10 to 15 March, Rock Wamytan, Signatory to the Noumea Accord and President, UC-FLNKS, Congress of New Caledonia, called the mission “historic” in that it had taken place during the final period of the Nouméa Accord, with the Kanak people hoping to achieve self-determination through electoral consultations.

The Accord’s provisions on those consultations, he said, could end a 160-year-long history of turning the Kanak people into a minority through a methodical settlement policy.  Through the non-independence parties, France was threatening Kanaks in efforts linked to the creation of lists of those eligible participants in elections, he said, adding that, for decades, the administering Power had set the rules of the game on voting rights, having strengthened the anti-independence party and contravened the wishes of the Kanak people.

Béatrice Le Fraper ( France) said her country had regularly communicated with the United Nations and responded positively to the Special Committee’s requests.  Her Prime Minister had decided to undertake the mission to show that France played an “exemplary” role in New Caledonia.  Provincial elections, held on 11 May, had been conducted smoothly, she said, emphasizing that the Nouméa process should be seen through to the end and allow for the full exercise of sovereignty by Caledonians.  A critical discussion phase was beginning among Caledonians, which must be done in an atmosphere of mutual trust.  France’s role was to facilitate dialogue that linked the various segments of Caledonian society.

Gaël Yanno, President of the Congress of New Caledonia, said that, in the May provincial elections, anti-independence candidates had won a majority of seats.  Free association, integration and independence were not the only options for New Caledonia, he said, noting the option to become a decolonized French territory.

Marie-Paule Tourte-Trolue, Deputy Secretary-General, Office of the High Commissioner of New Caledonia, said the French Government was a partner in the Nouméa Accord, having “progressively and irreversibly” shifted its powers to New Caledonia and supported socioeconomic development.

Also today, the Special Committee heard two petitioners on question of French Polynesia, as well as adopted the Report of the Pacific Regional Seminar (document A/AC.109/2014/CRP.11) and its report on decisions concerning organizational matters (document A/AC.109/2014/L.14).

Additional participants in today’s discussion were the representatives of Nicaragua, Saint Lucia and Chile.

READ FULL PRESS RELEASE HERE. 

U.N. Decolonization Committee adopts resolutions on small territories

24 June 2014

General Assembly GA/COL/3270

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Special Committee on Decolonization

6^th Meeting (AM)

SPECIAL DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE APPROVES TEXT URGING GOVERNMENTS TO END ENTERPRISES THAT HARM INTERESTS 

OF NON-SELF-GOVERNING PEOPLES

Tokelau, New Zealand Agree to ‘Park’ Referendum Question, Focus on Basic Needs

Acting without a vote, the Special Committee on Decolonization approved four draft resolutions today to accelerate efforts to create a world free of colonialism.

By terms of the text aimed at furthering the implementation of the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (A/AC.109/2014/L.9), the General Assembly would call on the administering Powers to take steps to enable the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to fully exercise their right to self-determination and independence.

The Assembly, through the text on economic and other activities affecting the Non-Self-Governing Territories (A/AC.109/2014/L.11), would call on all Governments that have not yet done so to take legislative, administrative or other measures to end enterprises detrimental to the interests of the inhabitants.  Further, it urged the administering Powers to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable rights of the inhabitants to their natural resources and property.

By the text concerning implementation of the Declaration by the United Nations specialized agencies and other associated institutions (A/AC.109/2014/L.10), the Assembly would recommend that those organizations’ executive heads formulate concrete proposals to fully implement the relevant United Nations resolutions and submit them to their governing and legislative organs.

The representative of the Russian Federation, speaking before action, said his Government actively supported the rights of people of Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination and independence.  However, attention of that highly political issue within the Economic and Social Council distracted from the Council’s main role of coordinating socioeconomic activities.  As such, his Government would abstain from the vote on the draft.

The Special Committee also approved a text (A/AC.109/2014/L.8), which covered the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands.

Nicaragua’s delegate, in a general statement, reiterated his Government’s commitment to fight colonialism and support self-determination among peoples in Non-Self-Governing Territories.  He underlined the importance of regional seminars, as well as the need for increased resources to foster greater participation among representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories.

Aliki Faipule Kuresa Nasau, Titular Head of Tokelau, in other business today briefed the Special Committee on elections held earlier this year for the 20-member General Fono and the six-member Council for the Ongoing Government of Tokelau.  The results were positive, with the first woman ever elected to the six-member Council.  Next month, the National Fono would endorse its 2014/15 budget, which was focused on fully implementing the national strategic plan 2010-2015.  That plan was supported by the Joint Commitment for Development between Tokelau and New Zealand, and 60 per cent of its targets had been met. Gains also had been made in the areas of education, health and energy efficiency.  On the issue of self-determination, he said that, following the 2007 referendum, it was agreed with New Zealand to “park” the question of holding another referendum, and instead, focus on meeting basic needs.

Jonathan Kings (New Zealand), Administrator of Tokelau, described his country’s relationship with Tokelau as “extremely positive”.  He noted that Tokelau’s extreme geographic isolation and small population were factors that would continue to shape New Zealand’s engagement.  With reliable transport now in place, his Government was focused on basic services, with efforts centred on improving education and health-care delivery.  New Zealand was supporting Tokelau in implementing recommendations from the recent education review, which showed the need for action.  It was also focused on governance, an overarching theme of other reviews under way in health, telecommunications and transport, as well as on fishing revenues.  Those issues remained a focus before any further act of self-determination would be considered.

Also delivering statements on the question of Tokelau were the representatives of Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone and Fiji.

Consideration of the draft resolution on the question of Tokelau was postponed to a later date.

The next meeting of the Special Committee will be on 26 June, when it will take up the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

READ THE FULL PRESS RELEASE HERE. 

U.N. Decolonization Committee adopts annual resolution on Puerto Rico

23 June 2014

General Assembly GA/COL/3269

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Special Committee on Decolonization

4^th & 5^th Meetings (AM & PM)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION APPROVES TEXT SUPPORTING 

PUERTO RICO’S ‘INALIENABLE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION’

Speakers Call on United States to ‘End Subjugation’, Release Political Prisoners

The Special Committee on Decolonization today called on the United States to again expedite a process that would allow the people of Puerto Rico to fully exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, as well as take decisions, in a sovereign manner, to address their economic and social needs.

By a resolution approved by consensus, the Committee would have the General Assembly urge the United States to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and in Ceiba to Puerto Rico, respect fundamental human rights and cover the costs of decontaminating areas previously used in military exercises.

Also by the text, the Special Committee — formally known as the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples — would have the Assembly reiterate its request to release Oscar López Rivera and Norberto Gonzalez Claudio.  Both individuals were political prisoners serving sentences in the United States for cases relating to the struggle for Puerto Rican independence.  The text also expressed concern about the actions carried out against Puerto Rican independence fighters and encouraged an investigation of those actions.

The Assembly, by other terms, would reaffirm the inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence, and reiterate that the Puerto Rican people constituted a Latin American and Caribbean nation with its own unequivocal national identity.

Cuba’s representative, introducing the text, said it reflected the international community’s urgent call to end the colonial status of Puerto Rico, which had been unable to exercise its right to self-determination and independence, despite 32 previous resolutions.  In addition, he said, Puerto Ricans had rejected the current status of political subordination in November 2012.

Iran’s representative, speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, supported the right of Puerto Ricans to self-determination and independence on the basis of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV).

Throughout the day, nearly 50 petitioners outlined their views on Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States, which many stressed must change drastically to ensure a better future for the island’s 3.2 million inhabitants.

Several reaffirmed the applicability of resolution 1514 (XV) — the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples — and of the Special Committee’s 32 resolutions on Puerto Rico’s situation.  The self-determination process did not require United States congressional approval, they said, and that country should cooperate with Puerto Ricans to design a decolonization mechanism.

Many petitioners argued for Puerto Rico’s independence.  Wilma E. Reveron Collazo, Movimiento Independentista Nacional Hostosiano, said Puerto Rico’s sovereignty had been illegally taken over by the United States.  It was a Latin American and Caribbean country that must participate fully in the United Nations.  The Legislator had put forward bills to convene a constitutional assembly — an independent body of elected representatives who would draft or adopt a constitution — which would guarantee the start of a self-determination process.  People must be educated about their decolonization options, and efforts should be supervised by the Special Committee.

Others pointed to ways that United States corporations had exploited local populations, dislocating neighbourhoods, forcing businesses to close and, in the case of pharmaceutical companies, contaminating the soil.  Héctor Cintrón Príncipe, Consejo Nacional Para la Descolonización, said hormone-injected animals and junk food sold by the United States had created serious health problems for Puerto Ricans, who in turn had no choice but to depend on drugs sold by United States pharmaceutical companies.

Another clear example of subjugation, said Evelyn Román Montalvo, Coalición Puertorriqueña contra la Pena de Muerte, was the forced application of capital punishment on Puerto Ricans convicted on federal charges, despite that the island had outlawed that practice in 1929.  The text should recognize Puerto Rico as the only place where the death penalty continued to be applied after people had rejected it.

Some speakers took a different view of the United States relationship.  John Ross Serrano Sanabria, College Republican Federation of Puerto Rico, said Puerto Rico was not a country, but a United States territory inhabited by American citizens with a particular culture.  The island’s Governor was the Head of Government, just as in the other 50 states.  He asked the Committee to include Puerto Rico on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories and press the United States Congress to admit it as the fifty-first state.  Edwin Pagan, Generación 51, added that resolution 1514 (XV) outlined the parameters for establishing statehood.

Still others called on the Committee to recognize the Taínos people as the only representatives of the Borinquen nation.  Evaristo Silva Cintrón, Hermandad Taína, joined others in calling for the Borinquen state to have a seat in the General Assembly.  Francis A. Boyle, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, asked the Special Committee to credential the sovereign Borinquen state.

The imprisonment in the United States of pro-independence Puerto Ricans was one concern about which a number of speakers rallied, with many calling for the immediate, unconditional release of Oscar López Rivera and Norberto Gonzalez Claudio.  A few asked for a pause in deliberations for 33 seconds, in honour of Mr. López Rivera’s 33-year struggle for justice.

Other petitioners addressing the Special Committee today were representatives of the following organizations:  Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, New Progressive Party, Madres contra la Guerra, Comité de Derechos Humanos de Puerto Rico, Boricuas por un Nuevo País, Coordinadora Nacional de las Actividades del Cerro de los Mártires, Puerto Rican Committee of the United Nations, Puerto Rican Independence Party, American Association of Jurists, Alianza Comunitaria de Boriken, Puertorriqueños Unidos En Accion, Colegio de Profesionales del Trabajo Social de Puerto Rico, ProLibertad Freedom Campaign, Unión Nacional de Estudiantes, New York Solidarity with Vieques, Oficina de Asuntos Comunitarios e Indígenas, Juventud Boricua, National Lawyers Guild International Committee, Frente Autonomista, Igualdad, Citizens Movement for Statehood, Socialist Workers Party, Frente Socialista de Puerto Rico, Movimiento Union Soberanista de Puerto Rico, League of United Latin American Citizens, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, High School Republicans of Puerto Rico, New York Coordinator to Free Oscar López Rivera, ProELA, Accion Soberanista, Partido Nacionalista de Puerto Rico-Movimiento Libertador-Junta Nacional, Renacer Ideologico Estadista, Boricua Ahora Es, Graduate School of Public Health-University of Puerto Rico, Grupo por la Igualdad y la Justicia de Puerto Rico, Frente Patriotico Arecibeño, and the Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico.

Also speaking today were representatives of Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Costa Rica (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).

The Special Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on 24 June, to address the Questions of New Caledonia, American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands.

READ FULL TEXT PRESS RELEASE HERE. 

Cautious U.N. procedures are impeding the decolonization process

Commentary

 Overseas Territories Review

            Last week, the United Nations (U.N.) Decolonization Committee began its 2014 hearings on the seventeen non self-governing on the U.N. General Assembly list. They began with Western Sahara and Gibraltar, two of the three territories subject to sovereignty disputes. Hearings will continue over the next several weeks on the British and American administered dependencies in the Caribbean and Pacific, the French administered Pacific dependencies, and the Falkland Islands/Malvinas claimed both by neighboring Argentina and far distant United Kingdom. Thanks to the U.N. webcast, the full committee sessions are available for viewing across the globe. Last Monday's committee meeting provided a glimpse into some of the longstanding challenges faced by the U.N. in completing the decolonization process.

During its resumed session last Monday, the committee heard a presentation by the Frente POLISARIO, the representative of the people of Western Sahara which remains under  the control of the North African state of Morocco. Self-determination for the Sahrawi people has been stymied for decades with Morocco stalling the referendum process in favor of a proposed dependency status under the guise of 'autonomy'.  Meanwhile, the natural resources of Western Sahara, whose ownership is supposedly protected by U.N. doctrine and International Court of Justice rulings, are instead being usurped with the help of willing interlocutors like the Europe Union (E.U.) through agreements with Morocco to exploit the territory's fisheries resources.

The case of Gibraltar, however,  differs significantly from its counterpart in Northern Africa. Unlike Western Sahara, Gibraltar represents a dispute between two E.U. states, Spain and the United Kingdom (U.K.), over the interpretation of centuries old treaties of ownership of that tiny sliver of land between the two nations. But unlike Western Sahara where the issues of self-determination and independence are the focus, the elected Gibraltar authorities have historically sought international legitimization of its dependency status with the U.K. The Gibraltar authorities told the committee last Monday that the 1970  U.N. Resolution 2625 gives credence to any political option as long as it has been chosen by the people - regardless of whether it is self-governing or not. They use this as the basis for their argument to be removed from the U.N. list, and have repeatedly asked the U.N. to clarify this issue.

Their interpretation of Resolution 2625, however, is misguided, and had been earlier clarified in a 2006 expert analysis on the criteria for de-listing a territory disseminated to U.N. member states at that time. The analysis explained that the intention of the General Assembly in the 1970 resolution was not to legitimize a dependency status which fell short of "a full measure of self-government with political equality." In other words, the U.N. does not authenticate such arrangements as fully self-governing if they are not.

But the committee discussion on Gibraltar raised a number of issues reflective of present U.N. procedures. In order to determine the self-governance sufficiency of a given political arrangement, the U.N. is mandated to examine new or existing dependency governance frameworks on a case-by-case basis according to annual U.N. resolutions.  The problem is that such case-by-case reviews are not being performed - not for the 'autonomy' proposal promoted for Western Sahara, nor for the prevailing constitutional order of Gibraltar, nor for the political arrangements in place or envisaged for any of the other remaining dependencies. Understandably, this has resulted in a lack of clarity on the part of the territories and member States alike on where the democratic deficiencies exist in these non self-governing arrangements. In the absence of such analysis, however, the U.N. committee hearings are limited to repetitive re-statement of position. There appears to be no scope for committee examination as to whether such dependency arrangements as Gibraltar pass the self-governance test.

Such studies as the 2006 expert analysis, the 2006 Program of Implementation (POI) endorsed by the General Assembly and others would shed considerable light on some of the fundamental questions continually raised in the U.N. decolonization proceedings by the territorial leaders who continue to seek clarity on the rules of the decolonization process. These questions are mostly met with silence, and sometimes defensiveness on the part of the committee. This makes the committee vulnerable to increasing criticism by the representatives of the territories who are genuinely seeking answers on the relevance of the U.N. and international law in their decolonization process, and how this role is to be carried out in view of  myriad U.N. resolutions on decolonization and self-determination. The territories simply wish to know the reasons for the insufficient implementation of these resolutions designed to assist - and even guide - their political development. They have a right to such clarity.

The Chief Minister of Gibraltar sought as much in his statement to the committee last Monday, and  his queries could have been easily addressed. But the response was merely to point out the committee's limitation of action. This does not address the substance of the matter. An even cursory review of the Gibraltar Constitutional Order reveals substantial democratic deficiencies if U.N. principles of self-government are applied, and there is a responsibility to inform them of that fact. The Chief Minister of the territory recalled that its constitutional documents had been submitted to the committee years ago for analysis. But no review was ever published on Gibraltar or any of the other territories on the U.N. list. Yet it is the clarity brought by examination of the elements of the various dependency models which is critical. Otherwise, awkward exchanges as the one seen across the globe on the webcast between the Gibraltar leader and the committee last week will continue to be repeated. This only serves the interests of those who seek to further marginalize the U.N.'s role in decolonization.

A similar scenario to that of Gibraltar played out in the U.N.'s decolonization seminar in Fiji last May. In this case, the representative of the Government of Guam made a series of recommendations designed to assist that territory's ongoing political education program leading to a political status referendum in the territory.  The representative asked for a more proactive U.N. approach to provide information to the territories on the decolonization options,  the development of  individual work programs for each territory - as the decolonization resolutions have mandated for years, and expert political analysis on the nature of the dependency arrangements as mandated in the plan of action of the first, second and presently the third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.

These are not new issues, but are measures repeatedly reaffirmed for action by the General Assembly for years. It should not, therefore, be seen as unreasonable that a territorial representative might question why these actions have not been carried out for decades. This is the information they need to move their own political status processes forward. But it is this very lack of clarity brought on by the absence of information and analysis which has impeded the decolonization process in these territories. It is the insufficiency of substantive response from the committee on these issues which has led to a creeping disillusionment in many territories with the committee's cautiously arcane methods.

The requests by these territories for the U.N. to carry out the actions called for in the U.N. resolutions should not be seen by U.N. member states as demeaning to the committee, but is certainly reflective of a growing frustration with a lack of accountability of the U.N. as the guardian of the  decolonization mandate. It may speak to a lack of political will on the part of the U.N. to implement its own decolonization decisions. It may also speak to the posture of a U.N. bureaucracy unwilling or unable to carry out this mandate, and which is allowed to pick and choose which actions it will undertake, and which it will not. But whatever the reason, the system seems content to define its role so narrowly as to avoid responsibility for anything more than preparing annual information documents on each territory while bypassing the far more elaborate actions contained in decolonization resolutions. The decolonization process has slowed, not merely because the administering powers have been allowed to formally absent themselves from the process, but equally because the U.N. system has not implemented its own actions. 

Just how the U.N. defines its role sheds considerable light in this respect. The U.N.'s own Biennial Program Plan and Priorities for servicing the decolonization agenda for  2014-2015 lists as the sole two "indicators of achievement" the "timely submission of parliamentary documents" and the "sustained level of support to the work of the Special Committee in facilitating communication with the administering Powers." These are the identical indicators of achievement included in the U.N. budget for years, and are the same proposed for the 2016-2017 period. Such limited measures by which to assess achievement speaks for themselves.

Through all of this, there is no reason for the member states of the Decolonization Committee to continue to defend moribund procedures which appear to have evolved over time. The Decolonization Committee was not created in 1961 to be mired in such timidity. What is required is for those same member states to ensure that the U.N. procedures used to service the decolonization agenda are modernized to ensure accountability. This could start with a fundamental re-write of the "indicators of achievement".  Without substantive change to these U.N. procedures, and without a serious effort at accountability for implementing the mandate, true decolonization may not be able to withstand the pressures of inertia. 

U.S. Military build-up in Guam presents enormous challenges to island society

The Hawaii Independent

Looking at the ‘tip of the spear’

How U.S. Military policy in Guam, a proposed “mega build-up” and population displacement are destroying the island and its people.

 Craig Santos Perez 

Guåhan (Guam), an unincorporated territory of the United States, is the largest and most populated island in Micronesia. For a local comparison, Guåhan is larger than Lanaʻi yet smaller than Molokaʻi. Similar to Oʻahu, U.S.military bases occupy a third of Guåhan’s landmass.

Kanaka Maoli activist and scholar Kaleikoa Kaʻeo once described the U.S. military as a monstrous heʻe (octopus). Imagine Pacific Command headquarters as its head, the mountaintop telescopes as its eyes, and the supercomputers and fiber optic networks as its brain and nerve system.

Now imagine one of its weaponized tentacles strangling Guåhan: “The Tip of the Spear.”

In 2009, details of a military “mega-buildup” on Guåhan were released in a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a document that requires the military to outline how the military buildup will pollute and degrade natural and cultural resources. The EIS was 11,000 pages long.

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE.

Puerto Rico to decolonize through integration with Spain?

Group says PR should reunite with Spain

By EFE News Agency

A small Puerto Rican group has launched a campaign to demand that the Caribbean island break all political links with the United States and annex itself once again to Spain to become an autonomous community of the Iberian nation.

“We want to become Spaniards again, to be autonomous community No. 18 of a country that we never wanted to abandon,” José Nieves, the founder of the Puerto Rico Reunification with Spain group, said.

With the slogan “It’s time to return home!” and a promotional video with the Spanish national anthem in the background, the initiative so far has almost 2,000 followers on Facebook.

“We’re getting support from U.S. statehood advocates, independent-minded people, who would accept unification as a decolonizing option, and even supporters of the status quo,” Nieves said, referring to those who want to remain a U.S. commonwealth.

After decades of fruitless debates about how the political status of this former Spanish colony should evolve or be altered, the option of rejoining Spain “has never really been on the table, but we’re getting support”, said Nieves, thanks to “education and to the fact that supporters of other options see that we’re not moving forward toward anyplace”.

“Our demand has taken many by surprise, but it makes perfect sense. The key is in education,” he commented, after noting that Puerto Rico was a colony of Spain for more than four centuries and in 1897 even had a charter that gave it sovereignty as an overseas Spanish province.

The 42-year-old criminologist and security guard also challenges the traditional narrative of Puerto Rico’s incorporation into the U.S.

“In contrast to what we’re told in the schools, we Puerto Ricans welcomed U.S. troops with gunfire, not with flowers,” he says.

“The U.S. invasion was heavily contested. In fact, they could not move in during the first two attempts. Finally, they managed to do it because the mayor of Yauco sold out,” he said.

Among the group’s followers, according to Nieves, “there are many university people and ones with advanced degrees”.

“We believe we would be accepted by the Spanish people. To date, 95 percent of the feedback we’ve had from there is positive,” he said.