10 March 2016

Bonaire activist wants follow-up to Bonaire referendum rejecting 'partial integration (Papiamentu)

Special to Overseas Territories Review

Address of James Finies Nos Ke Boneiru Bek

Bon nochi na : sr Gezaghebber i griffier, miembronan di konseho, deputadonan, i tur presente i na esnan ku ta sigui e reunion aki via di radio o televishon

Awe a bira un dia historiko ku ratifikashon di e resultado di e referendum di 18 desember 2015. Mi ta korda den prome karta ku Hulanda a kontestami na komienso di e lucha aki, nan a skirbi “ku ta stap voor stap nan ta traha”, awel awe nos, Boneiru, tambe a dal un stap mas den e bon direkshon. Ku ta parse chiki i simpel pero ku lo por ta e diferensia den e proseso pa rekobra nos derechonan i felisidat komo pueblo Boneriano bek. 

Pesey nos ta felisita i gradisi nos representashon di pueblo i nos gobiernu ku awe di berdat ta uni bek ku e pueblo i ofisialmente ta ratifika i rekonose i respeta e bos di pueblo.  Boso lo rekonose i respeta i seja 18 desember komo e dia ku e pueblo masalmente a lanta i eksigi un kambio, i a bai urna i a defende su mes ku su uniko arma siviko, sivilisa, i demokratiko ku ta e referendum i a disidi ku 5040 voto No, ku e No ke i No por sigui mas den e situashon ku e la bin ta biba pa 5 anja largu desde 10-10-10. Kaminda ku a bin sistematikamente ta kitando tiki tiki su derechonan i su libertatnan i a rebiba i eksperesia di nobo e dominio i opreshon di wordu goberna pa un gobiernu di un otro un pueblo. 

E mesun pueblo ku a kolonisa nos pa mas ku 300 anja a hanja e oportunidat pa bolbe hasie di nobo,naturalmente den un forma moderno.  Ami sa ku nos no gusta tende di terminonan manera kolonial, ke tene esaki taboe bao di e pueblo, pero despues di 10-10-10 nos ta den un epoka real di neokolonisashon Hulandes, i esaki no ta emoshonal. Neokolonisashon ta nifika, Hulanda ku tin e poder major ta usa manehonan ekonomiko i politiko pa indirektamente i den nos kaso asta direktamente pa influensia un otro pueblo, pues nos pueblo Boneriano. 

Ta esey ta e resultado di 10-10-10 i ta esey nos a eksperensia i ta bibando desde 10-10-10.
Nos ta na altura ku e proseso di kambio aki, ku e pueblo Boneriano sin ningun duda pa interpretashon a demanda e kambio aki, lo no ta fasil, pasobra nos counter-partner Hulanda tin demasiado medionan di poder, demokratiko, ekonomiko, finiansiero, administrativo, edukativo i legal nan su bentaha pa e logra lokual ku Hulanda ke i nos alkontrario a perde kasimente tur.  

Pero awor ku e deseo i desishon i mandato di e pueblo nos ta den posibilidat pa kambia e posishon aki, pueblo a papia i mester respeta mandato i bos di pueblo. Hulanda sigur lo bai na respeta esaki, pasobra Hulanda no por bisa o para riba mas ku “ta boso mes skohe” i “ta boso mes gobiernunan di diferente konstelashon no kier kambia e rumbu aki” 

Pa nos komo Boneiru logra mas i pa nos derechonan wordu respeta nos mester di tur  judansa posibel den e proseso i trajekto aki. Ku esaki nos kier ta spesifiko ku pa logra mas ku Hulanda nos mester di eksplora e posibilidat di involvi instansianan pafor di Boneiru i forma aliansa formal i informal ku otronan den situashon semejante ku nos riba diferente nivel. Si komprende e manera pa konkista i domina un pueblo ta di dividie i esey esnan ku no kier e pueblo aki bon a hasi i lo sigui hasi, dividi nos, i esey nos a bibe pa anjos i a trese nos den e situashon aktual, i nos a sinja di esaki i mira nos a sa di para riba politika i a uni i awe e reunion aki ta resultado di e union aki. 

E tema referendum i derecho di pueblo ta para riba politika. No tin un Boneiru kolo berde, ni kora, ni blou, ni tur e otro kolonan, pero ta un Boneiru nos tin. Pesey por ehempel nos lo mester hasi esfuerso pa uni ku Sint Eustatius ku ta den mesun lucha ku nos, tambe buska aserkamentu ku nos otro rumannan den Reino, tambe riba nivel internashonal, pues varios kaminda ku por juda nos kausa Boneriano.

Den e parti aki nos di Nos Ke Boneiru Bek, nos kier juda un tiki mas, pa juda ku e voto No di e pueblo lo hanja mas forsa pa trese e kambionan nesesario, i ku boso bendishon, ku por ta formal o no-formal, nos kier tuma e inisiativa pa entre otro juda buska posibilidatnan pa reforsa e kausa Boneriano. Un ehempel ta e desishon ku konseho insular a tuma kaba na 2014 i a manda karta pa Hulanda ku e petishon aki, pa re-enskribi nos komo teritorio-sin-propio-gobernashon riba lista di Nashonan Uni i nos ke tuma inisiativa pa eksplora esaki. Den e kaso aki NKBB komo un organisashon independiente, gobiernu lo no ta responsabel pa nos akshonan i ta safe i si nan ta na agrado o ta juda, gobiernu por use sea formal o no-formal, ofisial o no-ofisial pasobra e lo benefisio nos tur. I si no ta e kaso no tin ningun responsabilidat di parti gobiernu mara na esaki.

 Ku otro palabra gobiernu i nos representante nan di pueblo lo tin e ultimo palabra.  I nos ta di opinion ku esaki lo promove i sigui engrandese e union ku ta e kaminda pa nos eksito pasobra nos tur lo sigui lucha i trahando i aspirando lo mehor pa e pueblo Boneriano. 

Si nos logra hanja e aliansa o koperashon i nos kaso jega na e nivel ey, sigur lo juda nos den nos posishon ante Hulanda, pueblo Boneriano a vota na nivel di pueblo, “no”, pueblo no a skohe pa esaki, i awor a skohe i eksigi un kambio. I ku respaldo na e nivel ey, nos lo por tin mas posibilidatnan nobo. Hulanda lo sa di respeta nos union i e akuerdonan di e komunidat internashonal pasobra ta e mes a bai di akuerdo ku esaki nan.                                                    

Por ultimo nos ta di opinion ku nos tin e derechonan aki kaba, ta buska nos tin ku buska pa realisa esakinan, di un manera o otro. Pueblo Boneriano no ta dividi mas, nos a uni, esey a sosode 18 desember i awe boso ta ratifika i rekonose i duna respet na esaki i nos por sigui padilanti huntu, nos tur uni ku e mesun meta, pa realisa nos derechonan ku mester soru pa trese bek bienestar i felisidat pa e pueblo Boneriano.

Danki i bon nochi.

James Finies, Nos Ke Boneiru Bek.  

Speech James Finies di NKBB den konseho insular reunion 23 feb 2016 tokante referendum ((Papiamentu)

Special to Overseas Territories Review


worldatlas.com

Statement by 
James Finies, Nos Ke Boneiru Bek 

Bon nochi na : sr Gezaghebber i griffier, miembronan di konseho, deputadonan, i tur presente i na esnan ku ta sigui e reunion aki via di radio o televishon

Awe 23 di februari sigur ta un dia importante pasobra ta bai diskuti riba e topiko resultado di referendum. Pues e derecho esklusivo di nos pueblo pa por disidi su mes riba su futuro.  Esaki ta e derecho di outo determinashon di e pueblo Boneriano ku ta un derecho humano ku ta pertenese na ami i tur otro Boneriano.

Den e kaso aki , e topiko di referendum, ta un kaminda basta largu a kana , hopi kos a okuri, ku e 5 minuut aki nunka lo jega pa relata tur lokual ku e representashon di e pueblo Boneriano i nan gobiernunan a presta riba e tereno aki desde 2004 bini ariba ku a kulmina na 10-10-10 den destrui i desmantela e pais Antias. Den nos kaso kreashon di e struktura estatal aktual, entegrando nos parsialmente i hinkando nos den konstitushon Hulandes bao di artikulo 134 komo Entidat Publiko, komo islanan BES. BES ku ta inklui tambe Saba i Statia, pues e islanan mas chiki i vulnerabel di e pais i pueblo Antiano, Hulanda a aneksa e islanan aki bao di preshon, i a hinka nos den e struktura temporal aki pa 5 anja. I esaki kontra voto demokratiko di e pueblo di Statia i tambe sin aprobashon legal di e pueblo Boneriano, ku nunka tabata na altura di e konsekuensia di `nan eskoho. Esaki violando i trapando e base di ley internashonal konserniendo derechonan fundamental di outodeterminashon. 

I ku e struktura aki lo keda vigente te ku 2015 ora evalua, lokual ku a sosede ku resultado konosi, ku obviamente tabata un frakaso i nos gobiernu a wordu deskribi den e raport aki komo esun ku prinsipalmente a hanja mayoria kulpa den esaki. Awor mester bai na disidi i traha riba un struktura definitivo.

Resumiendo en korto:

-E resultado di referendum di 2004 i akuerdonan politiko pa e struktura BES despues di 10-10-10  nunka tabatin un fundamento o base legal di akuerdo ku ley internashonal, e pueblo nunka tabata na altura di konsenkuensia di su eskoho i nunka a ratifika o legalisa esaki.                           -E 

resultado di referendum di desember 2010 pueblo demokratikamente a rechasa e inkorporashon den e konstitushon Hulandes bao di artikulo 134. Raport di mesun Boersma ku awe sigur ta tema di diskushon a raporta negativo riba esaki i aun mas peor ta ku e supervishon di Nashonan Uni, Sra Luethy, ku a bisami personalmente den un kombersashon ofisial, pero a pidimi pa nunka ripiti e kombersashon ey, pasobra ku e lo bai raporta tambe negativo kontra e referendum ey, te ku awe e raport aki no a mira lus di dia. Ni Boneiru ni Hulanda ni Nashonan Uni no tin e raport aki, anto awe ke bai diskuti tokante raport? Esaki no ta aseptabel i tambe nada otro ku lo bai kontra bos i eskoho demokratiko di e pueblo Boneriano. E 5040 votonan NO mester wordu respeta!                                                            

-Ku e resultado di e referendum di 18 desember 2015, pueblo demokratikamente a rekonfirma su posishon ku e no ta di akuerdo ku e kontenido ku a wordu duna na su eskoho sin kontenido di referendum di 2004. Esaki ta e uniko konklushon di e resultado, no purba na inteprete di ningun otro forma, pasobra si e pueblo a vota Si, awe henter e proseso i struktura ku nos ta den awe Si lo a bira legal. Pesey e eskoho No, 66% a rechasa esaki i awe e struktura aki no tin base legal definitivamente i ta ilegal, pasobra e no tin aprobashon di e pueblo. Esaki ta komprendibel?
O kon tin ku hasie komprendibel pa esnan ku no kier komprende esaki, espesialmente oposishon ku a kampanja pa Si, ku parse ta aki awe ku e intenshon pa kuestiona i ke kambia e desishon di pueblo?                                                                                                                      
-E mesun situashon igual ku na St Eustatius a inkorpore tambe den struktura BES i konstitushon Hulandes tambe kontra deseo i eskoho demokratiko di e pueblo Statiano.              -Ku na St Eustatius, desember 2014 a tene un referendum di struktura estatal kaminda dos  tersera parti a vota pa outonomia den Reino Hulandes pero ku indikashon di praktikanan di boicot di referendum meskos ku esun di Boneiru di 2010 i 2015.                                                               - Meskos a purba tur sorto di manera pa boycot esun di  Boneiru di18 desember tambe. I e pueblo ku 5 anjana largu a sufri, i boso tur uniko kos ku boso por a bisanan, 5 anja largu, no ta nos, ta Hulanda, nos no por hasi nada, awor boso a hanja kurashi , a uni, i duna e pueblo oportunidat pa usa su poder. I e pueblo a bisa ta basta. I awor kier kambia o hunga politika ku e resultado? Ta problema ta buskando?                                   
-Ku e gobiernu nobo di St Eustatius a ratifika e resultado di nan referendum ku a wordu boicota i lo mester kumpli ku bos i deseo di e pueblo.                                                                  

 -Ku e dos pueblonan di Boneiru i St Eustatius a demonstra konbensientemente i demokratikamente ku nan no ta felis ku e situashon ku a hinka nan den despues di 10-10-10 i a vota kontra e status aktual ku Hulanda den nan referendumnan.
Awor e pregunta na boso, apesar ku boso a eksperensia, pues biba e disgustu i rabia bao di e pueblo Boneriano, ku a protesta, manifesta, hasi tur sorto di kos pa demonstra esaki pa e ultimo anjanan, ku boso no ta rekonose ku henter e situashon ku nos ta den aki ta uno illegal? Ku e no tin ningun fundeshi legal pa sigui persisti ku ne? Ku boso tambe siguiendo ku e rumbo aki ta violando leynan i trapando derechonan fundamental di e pueblo Boneriano? 

Hasi politika ku referendum pa partido i puesto i poder, ta hungando ku e derechonan i futuro i destino di e pueblo aki.
Mi kier pa rekorda boso ku boso a wordu eskohe pa e pueblo pa represente i defende su derechonan i no pa entega o kita esakinan for di dje, loke a okuri desde 10-10-10. Kaminda a entrega e pueblo su derechonan i su poder demokratiko i asta boso poder pa representa boso pueblo den man bek di e mesun ku a kolonisa nos. I nos tur a re-biba nos historia kolonial di nobo, na un forma moderno, pues kiko ta nifika pa wordu domina i oprimi, di nobo, nos a eksperiensa e desesperashon i inkapasidat di gran parti di nos pueblo kaminda mayoria di nan a entrega. Asta boso mes no tabata mira salida for di e trampa ku nos ta den aki, e jamada pa un referendum a dune e pueblo un speransa bek, nos lucha i sakrfisio sobre-humano pa por juda konvense boso pa duna e pueblo e oportunidat, su derecho pa papia. 

I awor pueblo su bos a resona i a duna boso bek e mandato legal demokratiko pa tuma nos poder bek i asina boso por ta esnan responsabel pa juda e pueblo rekobra su prosperidat i felisidat bek. Ta esaki ta bai diskuti ku e referendum ku esaki tin balides? 

Nos lo no asepta esaki di ningun forma. I pa rekorda o refreska memoria o pa esnan ku no sa, ku referendum ta un mekanismo demokratiko ku a wordu implementa, despues di segunda guera mundial, pa evita guera i promove pas, i ta na lugar di guera pa un pueblo por defende su mes na un manera siviko. I nos tur ta bon na altura ku bida di hende mester wordu respeta i esun ku kita esaki for di e otro ta un kriminal ku lo wordu persigui i kondena.

Pero ku den guerra esaki si ta posibel pa kita bida di e otro legalmente, pues esey nifika un referendum. Evita ku nos mester jega dje lew ey ku nos tin defende nos libertat ku nos bida, pasobra esaki tambe ta nos derecho i ta legal pa por defende nos derecho i libertat ku tur medio posibel.

Apesar di dokumentonan, raportnan, analisnan di ekspertonan legal, ets, pero parse ku politika, puesto i poder, ta mas importante ku ley i derecho, ta pesey nos ta bai na e nivel aki awe, pa rekorda, ku si nos sakrifisio no tabata basta i sufisiente pa bira konsiente kiko ta posibel ora hende ta kapas pa hasi, ora sin interes o agenda den nada, solamente pa protega su derecho i libertat i pa por pasa esakinan pa su siguiente generashonan, i ku ta boso ta responsabel, pasobra referendum ta uniko responsabilidat ku por juda e pueblo Boneriano ku boso a keda ku ne despues di 10-10-10, i ta boso ta responsabel si mester bai na sakrifika mas pa nos derechonan i nos libertat wordu respeta i rekobra i restora.

Pueblo a papia, 5040 voto NO, no por tin ningun duda riba esaki hamas , niun otro impretashon, ni tampoko purba kamoufla i o bini ku ningun maniobra pa tene e pueblo den e mes un estado aki kaminda e ta wordu domina i oprimi i ta infelis. Pues nos ta roga boso, pa komprende ku e asuntu aki ta hopi serio i ta para riba ego personal o politika partidista i ta pa e pueblo Boneriano den su totalidat.

Sperando ku boso lo refleha i boso konsenshi guia boso direkshon kaminda hustisia i derecho di e pueblo Boneriano lo prevalese den boso desishonan awe i padilanti ku lo ta determinante pa nos futuro i nos destino.

Danki i bon nochi.


See Also:

Self-determination referendum for Bonaire being sabotaged


Bonaire group petitions for self-determination referendum




Bonaire Government requests U.N. listing as non self-governing territory




09 March 2016

Indigenous leaders murdered in Columbia and Honduras





BOGOTA – An indigenous leader in the southwestern province of Cauca died of wounds received during what appears to have been an attempted robbery, Colombian authorities said Thursday.

William Alexander Oime Alarcon, governor of the Rio Blanco indigenous reserve, was shot Wednesday in downtown Popayan, the provincial capital, by a pair of unidentified assailants traveling on a motorcycle.

The victim died hours later at San Jose Hospital in Popayan.

The shooting was denounced on Wednesday by the office of Colombia’s national ombudsman, which described Oime Alarcon as an indigenous leader known for his opposition to illegal mining in Cauca.

Oime Alarcon, 43, was carrying 20 million pesos ($6,250) in cash that he had just withdrawn from a bank, police said, suggesting the motive for the assault was robbery.


**********


See also: 

Remembering Berta Cáceres, Assassinated Honduras Indigenous & Environmental Leader


TEGUCIGALPA – Berta Caceres, a Honduran indigenous leader who led demonstrations against hydroelectric projects in her homeland, was killed early Thursday at her residence in the western city of La Esperanza, a human rights activist said.

Two armed men apparently arrived at Caceres’ house at around 1:00 a.m. and shot her dead, Hugo Maldonado, the president of the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights in Honduras, or Codeh, told reporters.

As a founder and coordinator of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras, or Copinh, Caceres headed up demonstrations against hydroelectric projects in the western part of the Central American country that she said threatened natural resources.

Caceres, a Lenca Indian and mother of four, was awarded the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize in recognition of her grassroots efforts to protect natural resources in western Honduras.

She also led protests against the June 28, 2009, coup that ousted then-President Manuel Zelaya.

The activist had denounced death threats against her and members of her family on several occasions.

One of her brothers, Gustavo Caceres, urged President Juan Orlando Hernandez to ensure that the homicide would not merely add to the country’s violent crime statistics, calling for the murder to be cleared up and the perpetrators punished.

He reminded journalists that his sister had been killed despite measures put in place to protect her.

Caceres always stood up for what she believed in but never used a weapon to protest because “her weapon was her voice” in denouncing human rights violations and the destruction of natural resources, he added.

Violent crime claims an average of 13 lives per day in Honduras, according to official figures.

Tokelau takes delivery of its new boat







The brand-new Tokelau ferry “Mataliki” snuck quietly into Apia port on Wednesday , awaited by staff of the Tokelau Transport and Support Services (TSS) Department.


The ship was designed in London and built in Bangladesh at a total cost of over NZ$12 million (US$8 million), funded by the New Zealand government.

Upon arrival on a beautiful calm morning, Mataliki was decked out in international signal flags for numbers and the letters of the alphabet. This ancient form of marine communication won’t ever need to be put to use seriously, it is hoped, as the ship is equipped with the most modern satellite navigation and communications technology - there’s even WiFi on board for its crew and passengers, so has been promised.
TSS Director Asofa Fereti said the new boat’s arrival was the end product of years of negotiations and team work between colleagues in NZ MFAT and TALO. Many technical people were engaged to provide input into the initial design and further modifications.
“It’s a dream come true for Tokelau”,Fereti said. “We have been waiting for this moment for a long time; let’s hope the vessel proves worth the wait.”
Delivery of the boat from Bangladesh was a year behind schedule because there had been problems with the stability of the boat in its initial design. This has now been fixed and the boat has been making its successful voyage from the shipping yards in Chittagong, Bangladesh since 29 December.
Mataliki stopped over in Singapore for a week, departing there on 12 January and making refueling stops at the ports of Dili, East Timor on 18 January and in Honiara, Solomon Islands on 27 January. The vessel’s crew comprised mostly Tongans including Chief Engineer Tolati Fifita. They had first been flown in from Tonga for the sea trials last year, and then again for the entire voyage to Apia.
The crew included one Tokelauan, Lamesa Mataga. Both the Master, Steve Christieson and First Mate, Allan Dillon had been flown in from New Zealand for the journey.
The new Tokelau ferry replaces a succession of charters from the Samoa Shipping Corporation: the Fasefulu and Lady Naomi have been supplementing trips by the PV Matua which has been doing regular, approximate fortnightly trips for several years until its engine broke down in July last year.

Operations of the new boat will be jointly managed by the Tokelau Transport Department and the company Transport and Marine – whose Operations Manager Dick Mogridge was on hand to also sign off on arrival of the boat in Apia.
Mataliki is capable of transporting up to 60 international passengers at a time, and a relatively small amount of cargo for the three Tokelau atolls Atafu, Nukunonu and Fakaofo. It can carry up to 120 passengers between the atolls.
Tokelau’s population of about 1,400 people is entirely dependent on shipping for people and goods, as there are no flights to and from the islands. The length of the trip to Tokelau will not change much as a result of the new boat. With a cruising speed of 11.5 knots, Mataliki is still expected to take at least 24 hours for a one-way journey from Apia to the nearest atoll, and 4-6 hours between the three villages.
Mataliki is intended to continue a fortnightly service between Apia and Tokelau, interspersed with freighters such as the Fasefulu that will still be chartered for goods and particularly fuel transport. Mataliki has been designed mainly for passenger transport, and passengers will find it a lot more comfortable than previous vessels. There are a greater number of proper berths to sleep in; there’s even a sick room for medical evacuations between hospitals. Solar panels will be mounted on the rooftop of the passenger deck to help reduce power consumption.
Mataliki’s maiden voyage to Tokelau is planned to start on 1 March. This will be just in time for the General Fono that is due to take place in Fakaofo from 7 to 10 March; the new boat will than also be officially welcomed by the people of Tokelau. They have been waiting a long time to take possession of their very own vessel: let’s hope they will be able to put it to best use for a long time to come.


Resolución para la Descolonización de Puerto Rico


minh





“...se hace evidente que necesitamos unos poderes que no tenemos y que están conculcados por Estados Unidos."






El escenario político de Puerto Rico en el 2016 se dibuja como uno de grandes retos para los puertorriqueños, tanto en el plano político como en el económico y social. El cuestionamiento creciente al Estado Libre Asociado, reafirma y profundiza las opiniones que llevaron a un voto mayoritario de los puertorriqueños en contra del ELA en las elecciones del 2012. Se observan condiciones extraordinarias que empiezan a perfilar una coyuntura que puede permitir atender dichos retos, avanzando en el proceso de descolonización de Puerto Rico.

Para grandes sectores de nuestro pueblo, “la crisis que vive Puerto Rico, que se ha agudizado en los pasados tres años, ha dejado claro que el ELA ya no tiene posibilidades de desarrollo y que no puede atender nuestros problemas más urgentes”1. Para muchos “se hace evidente que necesitamos unos poderes que no tenemos y que están conculcados por Estados Unidos”2 como resultado de la relación colonial de Puerto Rico a partir de la invasión militar de Estados Unidos.

Nuevamente se ha puesto en evidencia la condición colonial de Puerto Rico y su subordinación a los Estados Unidos y a las decisiones del Congreso estadounidense. Pero esta ocasión son los mismos funcionarios del gobierno estadounidense quienes se encargan de desenmascarar la patraña colonial del ELA.

La opinión emitida el pasado 20 de marzo del 2015 por el Tribunal Supremo de Puerto Rico en el caso de Pueblo v. Sánchez Valle et al. inició un proceso de discusión pública que nuevamente saca a la luz pública la condición colonial de Puerto Rico. Por su parte, las declaraciones del Secretario de Justicia estadounidense en su petición de amigo de la corte del proceso de revisión ante el Tribunal Supremo estadounidense corroboran la condición colonial.

Por cuanto:

- Como hemos reiterado en muchas ocasiones, los principales problemas de Puerto Rico son causados por nuestra situación colonial y la falta de poderes soberanos.

- La desigual repartición de recursos y oportunidades, propia del sistema capitalista, agudizan los problemas que sufren los puertorriqueños por la condición colonial.

- Estos problemas no se resolverán mediante el uso exclusivo del proceso eleccionario, sino como resultado de las luchas organizadas de la nación puertorriqueña, entre las cuales se encuentran los procesos electorales.

- El sistema político instaurado en Puerto Rico por el imperialismo estadounidense a partir del establecimiento del ELA es controlado por el imperialismo estadounidense. Representado en Puerto Rico por una clase política dependiente e incondicionalmente favorecedora de la condición colonial. En unión a los subsidios y subvenciones, la estructura jurídica estadounidense y su presencia militar y policiaca en Puerto Rico, dicha clase política ha sido utilizada para darle legitimidad a la intervención militar, política y económica estadounidense.

- Los dos partidos políticos que se han alternado en la administración colonial durante las últimas décadas, el Partido Popular Democrático (PPD) y el Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP), son dominados por dicha clase política y comparten tanto su naturaleza colonialista, como una visión de clase que los convierte en defensores del capital y en antagonistas de los intereses de los trabajadores y trabajadoras puertorriqueños; están descalificados como alternativa a los problemas que aquejan a Puerto Rico.

- La coyuntura actual, que se ha ido perfilando con la crisis social, económica y política que sufre Puerto Rico, y el cada vez mayor cuestionamiento de la condición colonial y del Estado Libre Asociado en particular, nos abre las puertas para la convergencia de las fuerzas políticas, sociales, etc. de la sociedad puertorriqueña que creen en la imperiosa necesidad de la descolonización de Puerto Rico y el reclamo de la soberanía.

- La necesidad de la unidad en la acción de las fuerzas anticolonialistas y pro soberanía cobra mayor relevancia ante la posibilidad que las fuerzas imperialistas estadounidenses y los colonialistas incondicionales de Puerto Rico pretendan enmascarar nuevamente la colonia con un ELA disque “mejorado” cuyo efecto sería extender por muchos años más el dominio colonial estadounidense de nuestra patria.


Por tanto:

- El Movimiento Independentista Nacional Hostosiano (MINH) convoca al Pueblo Puertorriqueño a que: 
Reclamemos la descolonización de Puerto Rico y la transferencia de poderes soberanos y se dé paso a un proceso de libre determinación en el que se garantice el derecho inalienable a nuestra independencia.

Se unan a la convocatoria para constituir en los próximos meses una entidad con el carácter de una Asamblea Nacional con el propósito de lograr la descolonización de Puerto Rico y el reclamo de la soberanía, que se pudiera llamar “Asamblea Nacional Para el Reclamo de Nuestra Soberanía”. Con este propósito se convocaría a representantes de organizaciones políticas, sociales, culturales, ambientales, comunitarias, profesionales, religiosas, deportivas, empresariales, sindicales, cooperativistas, educativas, etc. que estén de acuerdo con dicho propósito de lograr la descolonización de Puerto Rico y el reclamo de la soberanía. Esta “Asamblea Nacional” desarrollaría esfuerzos para realizar cualquier acción dirigida a cumplir dicho propósito y para desarrollar un Plan de Acción con el cuál enfrentar la crisis de Puerto Rico. Dicho Plan de Acción podría incluir:

a. Reclamar al Presidente estadounidense que dé los pasos para la transferencia de los poderes soberanos al Pueblo de Puerto Rico.

b. Solicitar que Estados Unidos resarza al pueblo de Puerto Rico los daños ocasionados por la invasión y colonización por más de 118 años.

c. Reclamar que se constituya una Asamblea Constitucional de Estatus.

d. Promover que se audite la deuda y se evalúe  las actuaciones ilegales y corruptas que han llevado a acumular dicha deuda.

e. Reclamar que Estados Unidos asuma el pago de la deuda.

f. Reclamar la liberación inmediata de los presos políticos puertorriqueños: Oscar López Rivera y Ana Belén Montes.

g. Solicitar a las organizaciones internacionales que apoyen activamente el reclamo de descolonización, de transferencia de poderes y soberanía, y el derecho inalienable a la independencia del Pueblo de Puerto Rico.

h. Solicitar la solidaridad y el apoyo a estos reclamos por parte de los pueblos del mundo.

- El MINH aspira a: que dicha “Asamblea Nacional Para el Reclamo de Nuestra Soberanía” pueda constituirse  en la entidad que represente el reclamo de descolonización y por la soberanía de nuestro pueblo, y en particular durante el proceso electoral del 2016; y se pueda instrumentar el Plan de Acción lo antes posible.

- Por tanto: Esta Asamblea Nacional  del MINH instruye a la Dirección Nacional del MINH y los cuerpos de dirección de la organización para que den los pasos para cumplir con lo dispuesto en esta resolución.


1. Alejandro Torres Rivera, 2 de enero de 2016. Más allá de la doble exposición: la dimensión política del caso Pueblo v. Sánchez para el futuro de las relaciones políticas entre Puerto Rico y Estados Unidos.

2. Idem
.

Micronesia Chief Executive Summits, Leaders sign joint communiqué






Chief Executives’ of the Micronesia signed Wednesday the joint communiqué which is a result of regional programmes of action in the areas of climate change, invasive species, regional, tourism, regional health and renaming the Micronesia Chief Executive Summits (MCES) as the Micronesian Islands’ Forum (MIF).
 
The communiqué committed the governments of Guam, Palau, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), and Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), CNMI, Yap, Kosrae, Chuuk and Pohnpei to cooperation on several issues.
 
The Chief Executives “ discussed the issue of the structure of the MCES and the need to institutionalise the MCES beyond a ‘summit’ basis to strengthen the voice of Micronesia and to improve its response to regional issues on an on-going basis.  In line with this focus, the Chief Executives agreed to rename the MCES to MIF.
 
Remengesau said that the MIF would unify the functions and activities of the MCES and Micronesian Presidents’ Summit.
 
The leaders also endorsed the plan of locating the MIF Secretariat in Palau and announced that the Taiwan government is providing a US$400,000 grant for   the Micronesia Center for Sustainable Future. (MCSF)   


The Chief Executives also agreed in principle to an annual contribution of US$10,000 by each of the current MCES jurisdictions to the MCSF for two years to help support the Center.   The first contribution will be due by October, 2016.  Contributions will increase to US$15,000 in year three.    
 
Next year’s MIF will be hosted by Guam. Guam Governor Calvo said he is excited to host the next meeting and is hopeful that progress has been made from plans and agreements that they have agreed on during this Palau summit.
 
The leaders also recognized and expressed their support for a number of regional events scheduled to take place in the coming year, including the Festival of Pacific Arts in Guam, the Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA), the Pacific Media Summit in Palau, the Micronesian Games in Yap, and the 47th Pacific Islands Leaders’ Forum in Pohnpei.  The Presidents agreed to provide all available support for these events.  
 
The Chief also Executives signed a resolution expressing their strong support of the International Peace Bureau’s nomination of RMI’s former Foreign Minister Tony A. deBrum for the Nobel Peace Prize.
 
The Chief Executives also expressed their support for the immediate ratification by all countries of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.  The Presidents acknowledged the seriousness of the challenges posed by Climate Change, particularly in this El Niño year, which has already caused the FSM, the RMI and the State of Peleliu in Palau to declare states of emergency.  
 
Palau’s Congress this week ratified the Paris agreement. The agreement sets out a global action plan to put the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2°C.
The agreement is due to enter into force in 2020.
 
The agreement will enter into force after 55 countries that account for at least 55% of global emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification. Palau, is the second country in the world to ratify the agreement, the first one was Fiji.  
 
“It has been a productive three days, the leaders have banded together as one now called the Micronesian Islands’ Forum,” Remengesau said after the signing event.
 
“There is strength in numbers and unity,” Remengesau said.



08 March 2016

Natives of the Hawaiian Islands are not Indigenous, They’re Aboriginal



Weblog of the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom presently operating within the occupied State of the Hawaiian Islands.




There is much confusion regarding indigenous people and its application or misapplication to the natives of the Hawaiian Islands. But before we can discern and qualify whether or not the natives of Hawai‘i are an indigenous people, we need to begin with definitions. By definition, indigenous is “originating or occurring naturally in a particular place,” whereasaboriginal is “inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times,” also referring to human migration as “first to arrive in a region.”


The term indigenous is common parlance in taxonomy, which is the branch of science concerned with the classification of plants and animals, e.g. the Black Bear is indigenousto the Americas, or the ‘Ohi‘a Lehua plant is indigenous to Hawai‘i. In this use, indigenousand endemic are synonymous. Aboriginal, on the other hand, is associated with migrations. You don’t refer to plants or animals as aboriginal.

The term indigenous as it applies to humans appear to have been first coined in 1972 when the United Nations established a Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Jose R. Martinez Cobo served as Special Rapporteur and was the author of the Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations. Cobo was the first to provide the following definition, “Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them.”

James Anaya, who served as Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, defines indigenous peoples as “living descendants of pre-invasion inhabitants of lands now dominated by others. They are culturally distinct groups that find themselves engulfed by other settler societies born of forces of empire and conquest.” Both Cobo and Anaya refer to countries such as the United States of America and Mexico, where in both countries or States, there pre-existed tribal peoples such as the Apache or the Zapotec.Indigenous peoples would not apply to a State such as Germany because Germanic tribal peoples such as the Teutonic, Suebian or Gothic were the ones that formed the German State as we know it today. They were not invaded or colonized by a State when they were still tribal. This same logic would apply to the Tongan State where it was the Tongan people, who are Polynesian, that established their State.

On June 27, 1989, the concept of indigenous peoples was adopted by the International Labor Organization in its Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169), which entered into force on September 5, 1991. Article 1 states: “This Convention applies to: (a) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations; (b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geological region to the which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.”

By these definitions, it is clear that indigenous peoples are distinguished from the State they reside in, and the term does not apply to the citizenry of States. In their journal articleIndigenous “Sovereignty” and International Law: Revised Strategies for Pursuing “Self-Determination,” Corntassel and Primeau explain that indigenous peoples are viewed not as sovereign States, but rather “any stateless group” residing within the territorial dominions of existing sovereign States [17(2) Human Rights Quarterly 347 (1995)].

On September 13, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution proclaiming the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. While the Declaration has no definition of indigenous peoples, it does provide what rightsindigenous peoples have within the States. What is clear is that the Declaration distinguishes between indigenous peoples and the State they reside in. In its preamble, the Declaration provides, “Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith,” and “Encouraging States to comply with and effectively implement all their obligations as they apply to indigenous peoples under international instruments, in particular those related to human rights, in consultation and cooperation with the peoples concerned.”

The first United States law to identify the natives of the Hawaiian Islands as indigenous is the 1993 joint resolution to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i. The Apology resolution stated, “Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national laws to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.” In 2011, it was inserted in Act 195—Kana‘iolowalu, where it states, “The Native Hawaiian people are hereby recognized as the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli people of Hawai‘i.” Act 195 also specifically made reference to the “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

This erroneous application of the term indigenous people upon the natives of the Hawaiian Islands has been the cause of much confusion and assumes that natives never had a sovereign and independent State of their own. Through the explicit acknowledgment by the Permanent Court of Arbitration of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State from 1999 to 2001, as well as academic and scholarly research, we now know this identification is a complete fabrication.

Since the Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized as a sovereign and independent State in the nineteenth century, the natives comprised its citizenry, which was called Hawaiian subjects. As a nationality, the Hawaiian citizenry was opened to non-natives who were either born on Hawaiian territory (jus soli), or naturalized, which had a residency requirement.

The term that was used to identify the natives amongst the Hawaiian citizenry wasaboriginal Hawaiian; and the Hawaiian translation of aboriginal Hawaiian is kanaka maolias opposed to kanaka Hawai‘i, which is Hawaiian subject. According to the 1890 Hawaiian census, there were 40,622 aboriginal Hawaiians (kanaka maoli), both pure and part, and 7,495 non-aboriginal Hawaiians (kanaka Hawai‘i), which included: 4,117 Portuguese; 1,701 Chinese and Japanese; 1,617 other White foreigners; and 60 other nationalities.

In her will dated October 31, 1883, Princes Bernice Pauahi Bishop set the foundation for the establishment of the Kamehameha Schools to be built in 1887. Article 13 of her willmade specific reference to aboriginal Hawaiians, which states, “I direct my trustees to invest the remainder of my estate in such manner as they may think best…in the maintenance of said schools; …and to devote a portion of each years income to the support and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood.” In other words, a person can be Hawaiian who is not “pure or part aboriginal blood.”

A similar provision was in the will of King William Charles Lunalilo who established Lunalilo Home for the Hawaiian elderly. Article 3 of his will dated June 7, 1871, states: “I order the Trustees…to expend the whole amount in the purchase of land and in the erection of a building or buildings on the Island of Oahu, of iron, stone, brick or other fire proof material, for the use and accommodation of poor, destitute and infirm people of Hawaiian (aboriginal) blood or extraction, giving preference to old people.”

Aboriginal Hawaiians are not indigenous people, but remain the majority of the citizenry of a sovereign and independent State—the Hawaiian Kingdom. The rights of the citizens of an occupied State is enshrined under the 1949 Geneva Convention (IV) relative the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and the 1977 Additional Protocol (I) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.

The Hawaiian Kingdom was not invaded or colonized by the United States before it became a State under international law, and therefore its people cannot be considered asindigenous. Instead, international law protects and maintains the continuity of the State despite it being under an illegal and prolonged occupation since the Spanish-American War, which is similar to Germany’s occupation of Luxembourg from 1914-1918 during World War I.

07 March 2016

Timor Leste Protesters Urge Resolution of Boundary Dispute with Australia




DILI, Timor Leste – Protesters are rallying on Tuesday in Dili, Timor Leste, to push for talks to resolve a boundary dispute between the country and Australia.

The marchers, most of them students, held their protest near the Australian Embassy in the Timor Leste capital.

Some carried banners with the messages: “We want justice” and “Stop delaying discussions on maritime boundary in order to continue stealing our oil,” while others held the Timor Leste national flag.

Juvinal Dias, spokesman of the Movimentu Kontra Okupasaun Tasi Timor, said Australia “shouldn’t be using its power to ‘steal’ from its impoverished neighbor’s future in the Timor Sea,” according to The Australian newspaper.

The two countries have been negotiating for years over the maritime boundary in the Timor Sea and over ownership of the large oil and gas reserves under the ocean floor.

Despite Dili and Canberra signing the joint Timor Sea Treaty in 2001, a spying scandal in 2013 spurred Timor Leste to consider withdrawing from the agreement.

The affair was resolved in June last year after Timor Leste confirmed Australia had returned documents which its agents had seized from Timor Leste government offices, following an order from the International Court of Justice that Australia halt spying on its island neighbor.

06 March 2016

FLNKS: Ineligible People Still On New Caledonia Voting Rolls

Pro-independence group says 3,000+ names need to be removed
Radio New Zealand International

 New Caledonia's pro-independence FLNKS movement says there are still more than 3,000 people on the electoral list who it says are not eligible to vote.

The FLNKS has issued a statement after France sent experts to Noumea to vet the lists and talks are due in Paris next month to discuss the implementation of the Noumea Accord which concludes with a possible independence referendum by 2018.

The FLNKS says the restricted electoral list that applies for the plebiscite still has 3,388 names that fail to comply with provisions of the law.

It says the French state has to submit an electoral roll which is sincere and transparent.

UN Secretary-General addresses "dire" humanitarian situation in Western Sahara

OFF-THE-CUFF

Wikipedia

Secretary-General's remarks to press following meeting with Secretary-General of the Polisario Front Mohamed Abdelaziz 




[As delivered]


Rabouni, 5 March 2016

I am honored to be able to visit here today.

I had a very good meeting with Secretary-General Abdelaziz and I would like to take this opportunity to express my most sincere thanks for their very kind welcome.

I have been very much moved seeing for myself what their aspirations and their challenges are.

As you know this morning, I went to Smara camp. I wanted to start my programme there by meeting with school children and representatives of young people in Smara camp.

I was most deeply moved and touched by such a warm and very passionate welcome by so many people who came out to welcome me and my delegation.

From their faces, I was able to read what they were going to tell us and I was deeply moved.

Simply because of the crowd, my convoy was not able to move. There was some issue about how to control the crowd so we had to skip the programme so I came directly from there to here to meet Secretary-General Abdelaziz.

Fortunately, I was able to meet with the representatives of the youth groups just now but I had to skip my meeting with the school children. I am very sorry for that but I am sending my best, best wishes for the their future.

What really moved and, even, saddened me was the anger. Many people expressed their anger - people who for more than forty years have lived in the harshest conditions and who feel their plight and their cause have been forgotten by the world. Understandably, they are angry.

I have assured the representatives of youth that the United Nations will do much more. First of all, to resume face-to-face dialogue and, at the same time, provide support to all refugees and people here.

The humanitarian conditions are very dire and we have to work to provide education for young people and we have to provide food, water, sanitation and livelihood [support] to all these people. So [the] United Nations will do much more with the international community.

The parties to the Western Sahara conflict have not made any real progress in the negotiations towards a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution. Through all this, we should be able to provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara as the Security Council [has been] requesting since 2004.

My first objective in visiting the region is to make my own assessment and contribution to the search for a settlement.

I am grateful for my exchanges with Secretary-General Abdelaziz. I will spare no effort to help make progress. My discussions provided good elements in this regard.

My second objective was to visit the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). I will visit the team site in Bir Lahlou, as well as personnel performing vital demining activities. I saw the remarkable and demanding work the Mission is doing in harsh conditions of the Hammada. I also expect to visit the headquarters of MINURSO in Laayoune, Western Sahara, soon.

Third, I wanted to bear witness to one of the forgotten humanitarian tragedies of our time. The Sahrawi refugee camps near Tindouf are some of the oldest in the world. It is heartbreaking to see these families separated for so long. The Sahrawis have endured a great deal of suffering in harsh conditions. I want to draw the world’s attention to a population whose plight is often overlooked.

This situation is unacceptable. Independently from the political process, the plight of the people must be addressed.

[My] fourth objective is to finalize the security situation here. We are concerned about increasing criminality, drug trafficking and even the possibility of extremists and terrorists coming to this region. We must address this issue in a comprehensive manner.

At the same time, I am calling on the donor countries to increase their assistance to this overlooked population to provide life-saving humanitarian [aid]. We must show that the world remembers the Sahrawi people. To that end, I will soon convene a meeting of donors and assistance providers in Geneva.

The World Humanitarian Summit this May in Istanbul will be another opportunity to mobilize global solidarity. That requires resolving situations facing people [who] have been displaced for generations, as we see here.

I have been heartened by the faith Sahrawis people put in the UN, its principles, and international law. Let us match this with determination to alleviate their plight and resolve this longstanding conflict for the better future of all Sahrawis.

Thank you.