11 May 2015

Poll finds overwhelming opposition in Okinawa to Futenma relocation plan; Activists appeal to the U.N.



The Japan Times

BY REIJI YOSHIDA
STAFF WRITER

Amid claim and counterclaim by activists and politicians over the planned relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station, one factor is often ignored: what ordinary Okinawans think about the move.

There was a testy exchange at a news conference Tuesday between Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga and a reporter from the Okinawa Times, one of the prefecture’s two largest newspapers.

The newspaper’s latest poll found that 76.1 percent of residents are opposed to “the construction of a new base” off Henoko in Nago as a replacement for the Futenma base.

The sample size was only 610 respondents, but it nevertheless points to a majority of Okinawans opposing the plan.

The poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, also showed an approval rating of 83 percent for Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga, who has pledged to use every available measure to block the plan to move the base to Henoko.

Suga insisted the move is still on track, saying local leaders elected by Okinawans and who were in power at the time gave the green light.

He ran through the history of the relocation plan. In 1999, he said, then-Gov. Keiichi Inamine and Nago Mayor Tateo Kishimoto agreed to moving Futenma to Henoko, and that the relocation plan drawn up by Tokyo reflects their agreement.

Suga also cited Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima as accepting the plan and agreeing in December 2013 to landfill work off Henoko. That work is now beginning.

“The (central) government listened to opinions of people who are said to represent Okinawan residents,” Suga said.

But if the Times poll is anything to go by, most Okinawans now disagree with their previous leaders’ decisions and want the base moved out of the prefecture altogether.

Onaga ousted Nakaima last November with an unambiguous campaign promise: to block the relocation.

Nago Mayor Susumu Inamine, a fellow opponent of relocation, was re-elected in January 2014, beating Bunshin Suematsu, a pro-base candidate who supported the Henoko plan.

Observers say it is difficult for Abe to make any compromise over the Henoko project before going to Washington later this month and meeting with President Barack Obama.

________________

Nago citizens appeal to UN to stop new US base construction

Nago citizens appeal to UN to stop new US base construction
At a press conference held at the Okinawa Prefectural Government’s correspondents club on March 26, Zenzi Nina, the head of the Teima district of Nago, announced that Nago residents had sent documents to the UN to oppose the new base construction.

 Ryukyu Shimpo

Zenzi Nina, the head of the Teima district of Nago, and Fujiko Matsuda, president of the Association of Residents of the Districts North of Futami Opposed to the Construction of a New Base at Henoko, Oura Bay, held a press conference at the correspondents club at the Okinawa Prefectural Government office on March 26. They announced that they have sent documents to three United Nations organizations opposing the relocation of U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Henoko, Nago.
The Nago citizens sent the documents to the Office for Disarmament Affairs, the Human Rights Council, and the Environment Programme. The documents state that the governments of Japan and the United States are ignoring Okinawan people’s opposition and forcing through building a new U.S. military base, which could lead to environmental destruction of local communities and ecosystems.
Nina said, “We originally thought the governments of Japan and the United States would give up the construction through negotiations. However, they will not. So, we have had no choice but to ask the UN to work on the issue.”

They said they have sent the documents, written in English, to the UN through fax, e-mail, and mail.

(English translation by T&CT)

10 May 2015

Nuclear testing legacy haunts Pacific Island countries

Logo




Eyes of Fire cover 425wide
The cover of the Eyes of Fire memorial edition in 2005. In July, it will be 30 years
 since the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. Cover image: John Miller


The Pacific will be virtually absent from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) review conference at the United Nations next week. Some regard this as an apparent sign of the overall decline of anti-nuclear advocacy in the region, which is seen as a worrying trend that needs to be arrested, writes Shailendra Singh.


Analysis – By Shailendra Singh


Prominent Pacific Island anti-nuclear campaigners want a revival of their once-robust movement to support the international effort against “nuclearism”.

Their call coincides with a major international meeting at the United Nations in New York – the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) from April 27 to May 22.

The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology while promoting co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

However, besides Palau, there were no Pacific island countries represented in the 148 States parties that participated in one or more of the annual preparatory meetings held in the lead up to the 2015 NPT.

This is despite the Pacific region’s immense contribution to the nuclear disarmament movement, as recorded by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). At the height of the U.S.-Soviet arms race, members of the South Pacific Forum signed and ratified the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (SPNFZ).

Moreover, Pacific governments have traditionally voted in favour of resolutions calling for a global treaty banning nuclear weapons at the UN and at various international disarmament summits.

This latest NPT review conference will consider ways to promote engagement with civil society in strengthening NPT norms and in promoting disarmament education. Yet, participation by Pacific Islands-based civil society organisations in the conference will be scant.

According to Emele Duituturaga, head of the Pacific Islands Association of Civil Society Organisations (PIANGO), none of their national liaison units are represented at the 2015 NPT. Neither is Duituturaga aware of any other NGOs that will represent the region at the conference.

Overall decline

The Pacific’s absence from a major event such as the NPT is another apparent sign of the overall decline of anti-nuclear advocacy in the region, which some see as a worrying trend that needs to be arrested.

Stanley Simpson, formerly assistant director of the now non-operational Fiji-based regional pressure group, Pacific Concerns Resource Centre, said that “nuclearism” was still a threat, even if it might appear dormant.

“The danger is not over,” insists Simpson. “We still live with the legacy of nuclear testing and activity.”

Nuclear testing in the Pacific began in 1946 and ended in 1996, with the former colonial powers – United States, Britain and France– collectively conducting more than 300 detonations in the region.

Nearly 70 years on, the continued refusal of the concerned powers to own up to their past transgressions and compensate victims deepens the sense of injustice felt in the region.

In February this year, the Fiji government pledged financial assistance to 24 surviving Fijian soldiers who were on Christmas Island (now Kiribati) during British nuclear tests in the late 1950s. Fijian Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama said: “We owe it to these men to help them now, not wait for the British politicians and bureaucrats. We need to erase this blight on our history.”

A recent article by the President of the Marshall Islands, Christopher J. Loeak, outlines the callous manner in which his country was treated by the United States. The article appeared in the 2014 publication, Banning Nuclear Weapons: A Pacific perspective, published by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

Loeak points out that besides the “Bravo” test, which was 1000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, 17 other tests
 in the Marshall Islands were in the megaton range. The total yield of the tests in the Marshalls comprised nearly 80 percent of the atmospheric total detonated by the United States.

Clean up order

French Polynesians were similarly treated by the French government, which conducted 193 atmospheric and underground nuclear tests at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls. The ICAN publication relates the case of a local Maohi (Polynesian) worker at the testing centre after an atmospheric test in September 1966 on Moruroa.

The worker was among those instructed to clean up all the debris that littered the roads. The worker stated that the supervisors told them: ‘It’s OK, you can go over there.’

According to David Robie, a journalism professor at AUT University’s Pacific Media Centre in Auckland, New Zealand, the Pacific anti-nuclear movement grew out of a sense of outrage that countries like Britain, France and the United States were using vulnerable Pacific island territories as pawns to carry out tests that they were not willing to carry out in their own backyard.

Dr Robie, who covered anti-nuclear issues as an independent jourmalist, authored a book in 1986, Eyes of Fire, about the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by French state terrorists in 1985.

“The arrogance of the North really upset a lot of people in the Pacific,” Dr Robie said. “Newly emerging countries like Vanuatu, led by the late Walter Lini (Prime Minister of Vanuatu) and political leaders like Oscar Temaru, then mayor of the Pape’ete suburb of Fa’aa, declared themselves ‘nuclear-free’ to make a statement of independence.”

After Pacific-wide protests forced a halt to French nuclear tests in 1996, the civil society groups at heart of the anti-nuclear movement either scaled down or closed their operations. Some turned their attention to what became regarded as immediate hazards, such as global warming.

Dr Robie states that while France was conducting nuclear tests in the Pacific, there was still a big “power ogre” to focus attention on. Once the end of these tests were achieved, other issues took precedence.

“In the 1980s, the buzzword was nuclear refugees. Now it is climate change refugees,” says Dr Robie.

Anti-nuclear frontline

The Fiji anti-Nuclear group (FANG), which was at the frontline of the anti-nuclear movement in the 1980s, is no longer active. The group opposed both French testing in Tahiti and the Fiji government’s policy on allowing nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships into the country.

The Suva-based Pacific Concerns Resource Center (PCRC), which acted as the secretariat for the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement, has since closed operations.

PIANGO’s Duituturaga states that with the closure of the PCRC, the nuclear issue “went off the radar”. Asked if the nuclear danger was over for the Pacific, Duituturaga replied: “No – of course not. Nuclear arms are destructive to all of us – whether or not we are directly involved.”

Dr Robie too believes that the Pacific remains exposed. Specific threats include the persistent radioactive contamination from 
the tests; the issue of newer fallout from the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan; and the China-US rivalry, especially with speculation about China’s eventual plans for Taiwan, which raises the spectre of nuclear conflict.

According to Simpson, it behoves the Pacific to be part of the disarmament movement.

“Nuclear testing is an emotional issue for Pacific Islanders. Pacific people can strengthen the movement’s heart and soul,” states Simpson.

Unfortunately, the Pacific presence is unlikely to be felt at the 2015 NPT, which will consider a number of crucial issues, such as nuclear disarmament, and the promotion and strengthening of safeguards.

******
Shailendra Singh is coordinator and senior lecturer in journalism at the School of Language, Arts and Media at the University of the South Pacific and a research associate of the Pacific Media Centre. This article was commissioned and first published by IDN-InDepthNews.

09 May 2015

No Democratization without Decolonization

Logo

Authored by: Dr. Francio Guadeloupe, Interim President/Dean of Academics, University of St. Martin (USM). Along with, Drs. Erwin Wolthuis, Division Head of department of Business & Hospitality (USM), and Drs. Sharelly Emanuelson, lecturer Department of General Liberal Arts, USM


PHILIPSBURG, Sint Maarten — In case you haven’t heard, there are university students protesting on the streets of Amsterdam. They are irate at what they consider the authoritarian and deceitful attitude of the board of directors of the University of Amsterdam! They claim that they are being told, “just shut up and accept what we say is good for you”.

francio_guadeloupe-001
Dr. Francio_Guadeloupe
Before forcefully being evicted by police officers on horses, students occupied university buildings to protest what they viewed as directors sacrificing their right to proper education at the expense of making profit; selling university buildings and cancelling certain studies based on economic calculations. All about and for the Euros! One of the battle cries of the students is “no real estate speculation with education money”.

The protesting students have been joined by brilliant minds and dedicated teachers—younger university staff—who more than likely will never get a permanent contract that will enable them to get a mortgage to buy a house and raise a proper family if they wish to do so. These university lecturers demand “sustainable career opportunities for all staff”. And, in an act of unprecedented solidarity, their well established colleagues with endowed chairs have joined the battle by championing more “democratization and decentralization of university governance”. A real revolution is taking place. A revolution for a more thorough democratization of Dutch society.
READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

07 May 2015

INDIGENOUS WORLD CRITIQUES FALTERING U.N. DECOLONISATION


United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Fourteenth Session
New York, 20 April-1 May 2015

 Intervention of the Indigenous World Association
On The Failure of the United Nations  System 
to Decolonize the Non-Self Governing Territories
and Violations of the Right to Self-Determination 

Agenda Item 4

Submitted By:

Indigenous World Association

April 21st. 2015 

Supported By:

Na Koa Ikaika KaLahui Hawaii; Kai ‘Ula Poni’I Hawaiian Civic Club Texas; Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice; Mahonga Mataitai O Ngati Hine; We are Guahan, Guam; National Association of Social Workers, Guam Chapter; GALA, Inc.,Guam; Our Islands are Sacred, Guam; Akali Tange Association, Papua New Guinea; Porgera Alliance, Papua New Guinea; The Koani Foundation; The Maori Womans Welfare League- Aotearoa.


I. Another Decade to Eradicate Colonialism!

On December 10, 2010 the United Nations passed Resolution 65/119 adopting the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. In doing so, the United Nations General Assembly once again affirmed its inability to eradicate colonialism and its failure to implement numerous recommendations from United Nations bodies including this Forum, for a concrete plan to implement the Right of Self Determination and delist the UN Non-Self Governing Territories. 

In 2008, the indigenous peoples of the Pacific and Caribbean filed a global intervention on the UN Decolonization process. It began by noting that in international law the word “sacred” is used only once. This is in relation to the “sacred trust obligation” which Administering States have to the “inhabitants of the (non-self-governing) territories” under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter. This “sacred obligation” is owed to millions of indigenous peoples who reside in the Pacific and Caribbean and who, under international law, are unable to realize their right to self-determination and self-governance, and they remain on the United Nations on the list of “non-self governing territories (NSGT)” pursuant to G.A. Resolution 66-1 of 1946. 

The Special Committee on Decolonization, which has oversight of the Decolonization process has been unable to implement its decolonization resolutions for the past 21 years and the U.N. System has ignored the directives given to it by UN Member states. A prime example is the refusal to implement the mandated political, education programs for the Territories, and its failure to respond to requests from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) for data relating to racism in the territories for 26 consecutive years. During this time, and continuing until the present, the UN General Assembly and its member states have declared not one, but three International Decades to eradicate colonialism with woefully insufficient response from the UN System according to independent analyses.

II. The Evolution of International Human Rights Standards for the Protection of Indigenous Peoples – The Special Situation of the Indigenous Peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.

There is a common misconception that international law relating to the human rights of indigenous peoples evolved because of the Cobo Report and ILO Conventions, and later, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is false. Long before the UN Human Rights Conventions were conceived and came into force, the United Nations had begun to address and examine the right of indigenous peoples residing in colonies, to self-determination.

There is a distinct body of international human rights law that deals with peoples and territories that are not self-governing. These indigenous peoples and their traditional lands, territories and resources, were subjected to imperialism and domination by foreign powers during the colonial period. They were denied the most fundamental of all human rights, the right of Self- Determination. This was justified by the Doctrine of Discovery.

In the early 1950’s the United Nations passed several resolutions referencing rights of indigenous peoples in the Non-self-governing Territories. These resolutions include:

1). G.A. Reso. 644 (VII), 10th December 1952, Racial Discrimination in the Non-Self-Governing Territories called upon administering states to abolish discriminatory laws in the territories and to examine any laws which were based on race or religion. Preambular paragraph three states:

 “Recognizing that there is a fundamental distinction between discriminatory laws and practices, on the one hand, and protective measures designed to safeguard the rights of the indigenous inhabitants, on the other hand.” This language makes clear that ‘special measures’ for indigenous peoples were needed to address past discrimination, and that such measures were not considered discriminatory.[see http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/079/87/IMG/NR007987.]

2). G.A. Reso. 752 (VIII) 9 December 1953, Attainment by the Trust Territories of the objective of self-government or independence requested the Trusteeship Council to commence reporting to the General Assembly on progress made in specific areas by administering states to further the goal of ‘self-government’… “in particular measures taken in respect of …. (d) the training and appointment of indigenous persons from each Trust Territory for positions of responsibility in the administration”. [see http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/086/17/IMG/NR008617]

3) G.A. Reso. 744 (VIII) 27 November 1953, Association of representatives from Non-Self-Governing Territories in the work of the Committee on Information from the Non-Self-Governing Territories in which the General Assembly ‘invited’ administering states to include in their delegations to the UN … “indigenous representatives specially qualified to speak on (economic, social and educational policies) these matters as they relate to the Territories”. This resolution underscored the importance of real “participatory democracy” in the decolonization process as the General Assembly itself wanted to insure indigenous direct participation in the work of the UN itself. [see http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/086/09/IMG/NR008609]

These and other early UN resolutions provided a framework for administering States to work with Indigenous Peoples to facilitate their ability to achieve self-governance through the exercise of Self Determination. 

From 2002 – 2005 the UNGA passed 19 resolutions directing that specific action be taken to implement decolonization in the territories – these actions were to be taken by UN agencies (UNEP, UNDP, Electoral Affairs Division, Dept. of Political Affairs), the UN Secretary General, the UN Regional Economic Commission, the President of the ECO-SOC, the Chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonization, and an Independent Expert and State administering agents. Few of these directives have been implemented to date. 

III. THE 2006 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

In 2006 the General Assembly adopted the Plan of Implementation (POI) – [A/60/853-E/2006/75, 17 May 2006], to endorse an implementation strategy in 8 areas – Information, Participation, Analysis of Political and Constitutional Arrangements, Missions, Protections and Conservation as well as Ownership and Control of natural Resources, Educational Advancement, Development of Self-Government and support for NSGT’s from the UN – since 2006, no action has been taken to implement the POI, and it is not referenced in the Decolonization discourse despite its approval by the General Assembly, 

The POI was unique in that it paired the recommendations with those best suited to undertake the actions. These included specific U.N. departments and agencies, the U.N. Secretariat, and the administering powers. The POI also recommended the introduction of ‘special mechanisms’ through the use of an Independent Expert to undertake research and analysis that had been mandated in the first and second international decades, but not undertaken. The POI was not undertaken because it was not included in the Decolonization method of work and there was no money in the UN budget for “Special Mechanisms”.

The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has addressed this matter before.We direct the Forums attention to the third Forum report to the ECO-SOC contained in document E/C.19/2004/23, E/2004/43. Recommendation number 54 (pg. 17) states:

“The Forum requests the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples undertake a study on the United Nations decolonization process and the Special Committee on Decolonization to assess its historical and current impact on the human rights of indigenous peoples of the non-self-governing territories. Furthermore, the Forum requests the Secretary General to undertake a mid-decade review or the Second Decade on the Eradication of Colonialism to determine whether substantial progress has been made in achieving the goals of the Second Decade and to identify proposals for addressing obstacles to achieving the goals of the Second Decade.”

Unfortunately, the recommendations of the UN Permanent Forum were ignored. No report was undertaken by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples nor was any mid-decade review undertaken by the Secretary General. It is now time to undertake a mid-decade review of the third decade.

Human Rights Experts and Secretary General call for new approach

At the opening the 2013 substantive session of the Special Committee on Decolonization, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today called on that body to devise “fresh and creative” approaches in mobilizing the political will needed to eradicate colonialism, saying it had no place in the modern world.” 

Pursuant to a decision of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at its eleventh session (see E/2012/43 , para. 112), Edward John, a member of the Permanent Forum, undertook a study of the impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on indigenous peoples, including mechanisms, processes and instruments of redress, with reference to the Declaration, and particularly to articles 26 to 28, 32 and 40. The outcome of the study was submitted to the Permanent Forum at its thirteenth session. (E/C.19/2014/3, 20 Feb 2014).

The report identified the ongoing human rights violations suffered by Indigenous Peoples as the result of the historical and continuing application of the Doctrine of Discovery. It called for redress through new process for ‘Decolonization’…

“34. Processes and mechanisms of redress, as well as independent oversight, are required at international, regional and domestic levels. Decolonization processes must be devised in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned and compatible with their perspectives and approaches. Such processes must be fair, impartial, open and transparent, and be consistent with the Declaration and other international human rights standards.”

The UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order relied in part on the PFII study to justify his latest report on the right of self-determination . See General Assembly, Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order: Note by the Secretary-General, interim report of the Independent Expert Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, UN Doc. A/69/272 (7 August 2014), para. 2, where de Zayas: acknowledges the study on the impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on indigenous peoples, including mechanisms, processes and instruments of redress, submitted to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, in which special rapporteurs are encouraged to play a role in establishing relevant standards (E/C.19/2014/3, para. 36).

At para. 58, de Zayas emphasized: "It is time to face 'historical inequities' and abandon the culture of silence." He relies on the Permanent Forum study in referring to the "racist and factually inapplicable doctrine of discovery". de Zayas then states:

“As the Permanent Forum study observes: “The Doctrine of Discovery is significant globally not only for abuses in the past, but also for its ongoing far-reaching consequences. Such colonial doctrines must not prevail in practice over human rights, democracy and the rule of law……

Self-determination is an expression of the individual and collective right to democracy, as democracy is an expression of the individual and collective right of self-determination. Both have national and international dimensions. The hallmark of self-determination must be public participation in decision-making and control over resources. In most cases this can be achieved within existing State entities, inter alia through federalism and other models of autonomy. (ibid.para. 32).

“The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples constitutes a milestone in the struggle of indigenous peoples for self-determination and provides an important catalogue of rights and entitlements that should guide both Governments and the indigenous peoples themselves.”(ibid. para. 60).

“The right [of self-determination] is not extinguished with lapse of time because, just as the rights to life, freedom and identity, it is too important to be waived.”(para. 66)

A failed case example of the decolonization process is the United States unincorporated territory of Guam in the Pacific. Guam was listed on the United Nations List of Non-Self-Governing Territories since its inception in 1946. Chamorros, the indigenous people of Guahan (Guam), have testified before the United Nations to report the United Nations’ violation of our most sacred human right to Self-Determination for over three generations; only to have the petitions fall on deaf ears. Not only has the United States not provided the necessary resources for an educational campaign towards a plebiscite, they have absented themselves from the consultative process of the United Nations Decolonization Committee sessions and its regional seminars for nearly 20 years now. 

Conclusion

Since the last global intervention was filed with the Forum on this topic in 2008, many Experts in the UN system have addressed the critical need to move forward to address and remedy the legacy of colonization. It is evident that the Fourth Committee is unable or unwilling to address the critical human rights issues relating to the right of self-determination of peoples in the Non-Self-Governing Territories and that this matter must be addressed by the Third Committee, the Forum and other Experts within the UN Human Rights System.

The Pacific Signatories to this Intervention recommend the following to the Forum Experts:

1. That the Forum recommend the ECO-SOC implement the relevant provisions of the Plan of Implementation (POI) adopted by the General Assembly– [A/60/853-E/2006/75, 17 May 2006], and ensure the necessary resources are made available to carry out the Plan. 

2. That the Forum recommend the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of the Peoples of the Non Self- Governing Territories to oversee and report to the United Nations on the status of human rights in the Non- Self-Governing Territories and the implementation of the POI.

3. That the Forum undertake a Mid-Decade review of the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism with the aim of identifying impediments to the fulfillment of the mandate, and proposing solutions to the Decolonization crisis experienced by Indigenous Peoples in the Non Self-Governing Territories.

Daniel Ortega: La independencia de Puerto Rico, una batalla que seguiremos librando

Claridad


El Presidente-Comandante Daniel rememoró
 un encuentro con Barack Obama en el ámbito 
de la Cumbre de las Américas, en el que le reiteró 
la esperanza de que el pueblo puertorriqueño sea 
parte de la comunidad latinoamericana a la que 
pertenece.


Visita la foto galería (1)

El Presidente de la República, Comandante Daniel Ortega, reiteró el derecho de Puerto Rico a la autodeterminación y aseguró que la independencia de la hermana nación es una batalla que seguiremos librando.

“Lo primero que debería de hacer Estados Unidos es reconocer la Independencia de Puerto Rico”, apuntó el jefe de Estado durante un encuentro con los altos mandos del Ejército Nacional, en un acto presidido además por la Coordinadora del Consejo de Comunicación y Ciudadanía, Compañera Rosario Murillo.

Daniel recordó que la isla caribeña ha estado sometida a una potencia por más de 100 años, con derechos restringidos.

“El Derecho que le dan los Estados Unidos a los puertorriqueños es hacer sus Elecciones para tener, digamos, determinada Autonomía”, señaló Daniel a propósito del diálogo con el presidente Barack Obama, durante una reunión del Sistema de Integración Centroamericano (SICA) en el contexto de la reciente Cumbre de las Américas.
“Entonces le dije ahora: Ya está Cuba, pero falta Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico es nuestro, Latinoamericano, Caribeño, y sigue siendo una Colonia de los Estados Unidos”, rememoró el mandatario sobre la conversación
.
“Esperamos, pues, que Puerto Rico algún día pueda ser parte de la Comunidad a la que pertenece y a la Comunidad Latinoamericana, y como tal participar en esta Cumbre”, indicó el Presidente a su homólogo estadounidense.

Señaló que “Puerto Rico es una Comunidad, es un Estado, es un País que está sometido al control del Departamento de Estado, al control del Pentágono, al control de los Órganos de Inteligencia de Estados Unidos”.

Sobre los más recientes comicios en la isla caribeña, señaló que no tienen nada de justos, ni de democráticos, ni de limpios, “porque están sometidas a un régimen colonial”.
Daniel rememoró cómo fue el proceso de negociación para la independencia de Zimbabwe (en 1980), que era Colonia de Inglaterra, y subrayó que “entonces, ahí se ve con toda claridad cómo, cuando las condiciones lo indican, se da el paso para reconocer la Independencia y renunciar al dominio colonial, que es un dominio por la fuerza que provoca guerras como las que había sufrido por años Zimbabwe”.

En ese sentido instó a Estados Unidos a hacer lo mismo con Puerto Rico… “¡darle la Independencia a Puerto Rico!” y que ya los puertorriqueños queden libres de las ataduras.
Acentuó que la inmensa mayoría de los puertorriqueños no están de acuerdo con actual estatus de la isla.

“Tanto los que están a favor de que Puerto Rico pase a ser un Estado de los Estados Unidos, como los que están en contra de que pase a ser un Estado de los Estados Unidos y que sea una Nación Independiente… Sumando todos esos votos, el 100% de esos votos ¿qué nos dicen? Que ninguno está de acuerdo con el actual Estado que tiene Puerto Rico de Nación Colonial. Eso es lo que dice… ¡ninguno está de acuerdo!”

El Presidente-Comandante subrayó que también se está logrando que pueblos como el puertorriqueño tengan un espacio para defender su reivindicación histórica.
Informó Daniel que el Comité de Descolonización de la ONU, que pide la descolonización de Puerto Rico, va a reunirse en el mes de mayo en Managua.

.

06 May 2015

AMERICAN SAMOA DISCUSSES ITS DEFICIENT COLONIAL STATUS IN RUN-UP TO UNITED NATIONS DECOLONISATION SEMINAR




The American Samoa Government will tell the United Nations next month that although proposed constitutional amendments relating to American Samoa’s political status failed to get majority support last year, the resulting public discourse suggests that American Samoa is ready to take the next step of entertaining serious discussion about what its future political status should be.


This is relayed in a draft statement by Governor Lolo and the American Samoa Government that was distributed to directors during today’s cabinet meeting. 

The statenent will be presented at  seminar by the UN Committee on Decolonization in Nicaragua next month.

The governor has sent copies of the statement to the Fono, Judiciary and to the Secretary of the Interior.

Lolo said he wants to get feedback from directors, from the other branches of government and from the head of the Department of Interior, which administers affairs of the territory.

In the six-page draft statement, the governor says American Samoa’s union with the United Staes has resulted in substantial benefits to the people and government of American Samoa.

But despite many benefits, it is his firm belief that American Samoa’s current political status as an unincorporated and unorganized territory of the United States is neither sustainable nor economically secure.

Moreover he says the relationship lacks appropriate vestiges of self-governance as required by the UN Charter.

Lolo said there are significant shortfalls in American Samoa’s form of government. 

For example, it continues to exist by virtue of delegation of authority from the President of the United States to the US Department of Interior and then to American Samoa.

The Legislature cannot override a veto of a bill by the governor without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior and the American Samoa Constitution cannot be amended without the approval of Congress, despite Congress never having approved the territory’s Constitution to begin with.

Additionally the Secretary of the Interior continues to appoint the senior members of American Samoa’s Judiciary.

The governor also states that American Samoa is exposed to acts of Congress in ways not comtemplated because of American Samoa’s unique size, location, geography and economic circumstances.

He said the territory is further exposed to actions arising out of litigation in the US federal court that may contrive to have a judge in a remote courtroom issue a judgment that could impact the legal status of the people of American Samoa under the US Constititution.

According to the statement, American Samoa’s political status further exposes it to “bullying tactics of federal agencies”.

Lolo cites for example that the Federal Aviation Administration has prohibited ASG from further use of airport land without getting FAA approval as a condition of releasing federal funds which he says are rightfully due to American Samoa.

He also points to the decision by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council to open parts of the now closed 50-mile zone around American Samoa to longline vessels.

The governor said, “Until we are able to cast our political status in a concrete fashion, giving us concrete protections, the fact we live under a delegation of authority from Washington, D.C., will haunt us with the possibilities of action being taken from far away that impacts upon up in ways we cannot anticipate nor for which we can adequately plan.”

*********

Attorney General, Cabinet discuss United Nations Decolonization Meeting


Some believe status quo is unsatisfactory


By Joyetter Feagaimaalii-Luamanu
joy@samoanews.com

Attorney General Talauega Eleasalo Ale says that many of our government and traditional leaders have come to a conclusion that American Samoa’s status quo is unsatisfactory and it’s not economically viable for the territory to remain unorganized and unincorporated because of the inability to have some control over our resources and over our land.

His comments were made at the Cabinet meeting yesterday in reference to a draft letter that was distributed to the cabinet members, which explains to the United Nations the relationship that American Samoa has with the United States.

Next month the AG accompanied by Secretary of Samoan Affairs Mauga Tasi Asuega will attend the United Nations Caribbean Regional Seminar on Implementation of the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism held in Managua, Nicaragua May 19 to 21, 2015.

Talauega explained that Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter calls on the colonial powers to help — what he characterized as former colonies — to become independent. He said the UN prepares a list of “former colonies” that are still today dependent on their “former colonial powers”.

“We are in that boat,” he said, “We are a territory of the U.S. and we rely on the U.S. for a lot of things, but we also do not have the independence that the U.N. deems each country to have.”

READ THE FULL REPORT IN SAMOA NEWS


*****



Samoa News


By Joyetter Feagaimaalii-Luamanu

joy@samoanews.com


American Samoa’s listing as a colony by the United Nations is an issue that the people and the government have over the years tried unsuccessfully to resolve, as the territory does not see itself as a “colony”. This is the issue being tackled in a draft letter to the United Nations Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism to be held in Managua, Nicaragua May 19 to 21, 2015.

Attorney General Talauega Eleasalo Ale accompanied by Secretary of Samoan Affairs Mauga Tasi Asuega will attend the UN seminar and will present the final document or letter from the Territory's governor concerning the issue of American Samoa’s political status — the UN currently lists it as a colony of the U.S.

In his presentation of the draft at the governor’s cabinet meeting this past Wednesday, Attorney General Talauega said the question that this poses is, how close — or far away — do we have to be to the United States to no longer be considered a colony of the U.S.?

READ THE FULL REPORT IN SAMOA NEWS


Anguilla United Front wins overwhelming electoral victory


ElectionGudie


APRIL 22, 2015HELD

7,934

VOTED
flags/anguilla.gif 

Anguilla

ELECTION FOR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

RESULTS

72%
VOTER
TURNOUT*

TypeCount
Valid Votes7934
Not Participated3066
Cast Votes:7,934
Valid Votes:7,934
Invalid Votes:None

PARTIES:

PARTYSEATS WONSEATS CHANGEVOTES
Anguilla United Front6None
Anguilla United Movement0None
DOVE (Democracy, Opportunity, Vision & Empowerment)0None
Independents1None