GUAM CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATE SAYS TERRITORY SHOULD CONSIDER 'DE-LINKING' FROM U.S. TAX CODE

Letter to the Pacific Daily News by Madeleine Z. Bordallo

Guam Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives

The Trump tax law enacted last year dealt a devastating blow to GovGuam’s revenues and caused our island’s current deep budgetary challenges. This law was crafted in Washington, D.C., without any input from the territories or rank-and-file Congressional Republicans or Democrats.

The consequences of the Trump tax law now require the Legislature and governor to address GovGuam’s budget shortfall. The impacts are significant and will affect thousands of GovGuam employees, local businesses and working families who rely on critical government services every day..

Making up for GovGuam’s budgetary shortfall is not an easy task. While reversing the Trump tax law is not possible in the current political environment, I am working hard to boost federal investment in Guam, provide parity for the U.S. territories in federal grant programs and develop new industries that will expand our island’s economy.

As we work to resolve GovGuam’s immediate budgetary crisis, our local leaders should re-examine our need to mirror a complex federal tax system intended for the United States as a whole, not specific to the needs or realties of our island. Guam currently mirrors the federal tax code, which requires our local government to adopt mandates enacted by the president and Congress and prevents local leaders from making meaningful changes to GovGuam’s ability to set tax rates and raise new revenue.

Developing a Guam tax code would allow our elected leaders to design a system that more accurately reflects the needs of our community. This cannot be accomplished in time to address our immediate budgetary crisis or provide an easy out for the tough choices that our Legislature and Governor must make this year. But in the long term, it would mean that GovGuam would have greater autonomy to generate revenues for local public services, assist needy families, and promote economic development.

Ultimately, it would put Guam on an equal footing with the 50 states and other municipalities that do not rely on the federal government to dictate how their local governments generate income and corporate tax revenues.

Since 1986, federal law has authorized the Legislature and governor to delink from the federal Internal Revenue Code, and I am encouraged that the Guam Tax Commission is reviewing this option.

Now is the time to seriously re-evaluate whether de-linking is ultimately good for our island’s long-term interests. This process will take time and will require engagement from our entire community. But we cannot let the complexities deter us from meaningfully considering this option. Any new tax code developed for Guam will also need to improve tax collection and enforcement, to ensure fairness and accountability.

As your voice in Congress, I am committed to working with our local leaders and providing technical assistance from federal agencies and tax writers to advance this discussion. By working together, I am confident that we will overcome the impacts of the Trump tax law and develop a stronger, more self-reliant Guam for future generations.

DEBT RELIEF FOR PUERTO RICO, OTHER U.S. DEPENDENCIES INTRODUCED IN U.S. SENATE

The U.S. territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands would be eligible jurisdictions under the proposal.

_____________________________________________________

115th CONGRESS 2d Session

S.3262

To provide the option of discharging certain unsecured financial obligations of self-governing territories of the United States. 1/

---

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

July 25, 2018

Ms. Warren (for herself, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Markey, and Ms. Harris) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

---

A BILL

To provide the option of discharging certain unsecured financial obligations of self-governing territories of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the 

“United States Territorial Relief Act of 2018”.

(b) Table Of Contents.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Findings.

TITLE I—TERRITORIAL RELIEF

Sec. 101. Relief through exercise of the power to regulate commerce, the bankruptcy power, and the territorial power.
Sec. 102. Effect of discharge.
Sec. 103. Actions relating to the status of financial obligations.
Sec. 104. Notice of discharge.
Sec. 105. Effective date.

________________________________________________

1/ International law recognises the U.S. dependencies as non self-governing territories administered under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter.

Okinawa Governor, known for his opposition to US Bases, Passes away at 67

OKYO – The governor of Japan’s Okinawa prefecture, who came to power in 2014 on a campaign platform of opposition to US military bases, passed away on Wednesday at the age of 67 years.

Takeshi Onaga, who was recovering after undergoing pancreatic cancer surgery in April, had been hospitalized, according to public broadcaster NHK.

At a press conference earlier in the day, Vice Governor Kiichiro Jahana had said he would be taking over Onaga’s duties so that he could focus on his recovery.

The governor had been openly confrontational with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe over the relocation of one of the biggest US bases in the area, which also led to massive protests in Okinawa and a legal battle initiated by Onaga.

At the end of July, the governor announced that he intended to exhaust all legal options to stop the relocation of the Futenma base from its present location to Henoko Bay, north of the prefecture’s main island.

Japan and the US had agreed to move the military facilities to Henoko, an area much less populated than the current base in Futenma, in order to reduce its impact on local population.

The local government, however, rejected the shift on the grounds that it posed a threat to the area’s environment and might prove to be detrimental to the local population.

Onaga tried to revoke the approval for the transfer given by his predecessor, even taking the case to court, which has ruled in favor of Tokyo.

A majority of citizens of Okinawa – which is home to over 70 percent of US military facilities in the country and half of the nearly 47,000 troops that the US maintains in Japan – are opposed to the relocation of the Futenma base and have asked that it be moved outside its territory.

SEE ALSO:

Okinawa Governor rejects national government’s calls for a retraction of his withdrawal of base landfill approval

Okinawa Governor, in UN Human Rights Council address, opposes U.S. base construction

WORLD BANK MISSION TO SINT MAARTEN TECHNICAL SUPPORT SUPERVISION MISSION

On Tuesday July 24, 2018, the Prime Minister of Sint Maarten, the Honorable Leona Romeo- Marlin received a delegation from the World Bank Group headed by Mr. Edouard Erefio Blanchet, Disaster Risk Management Specialist.

The overall objective of this mission was to provide Technical Support to the Interim Recovery Committee (IRC) and to supervise the Emergency Recovery Project I (ERP1) and Grant Agreement which was signed in Sint Maarten on July 12, 2018. The World Bank specialists worked alongside the IRC on drafting and disclosure of the project's Environmental and Social Management Plan, finalized the Project's Operational Manual, processed the first disbursement of funds and discussed the procurement processes that have been, or are about to be undertaken, in particular the shelters repairs.

The group also provided environmental and social safeguard support to the Hospital Resiliency and Preparedness Project currently under preparation. A review of all planned and retroactive financed activities was also conducted as part of safeguard due diligence, to ensure that the proper environmental assessment arid mitigation provisions are in place. Work was also carried out with the Sint Maarten Medical Center (SMMC) to draft the Environmental and Social Management Plan for the Hospital Resiliency and Preparedness Project.

The mission began with an assessment of all the shelters and the roofing projects that are being repaired under the ERP 1. The specialists also met with various stakeholders and recovery partners, such as GEBE, Fire Department, St. Maarten Housing Development Foundation (SMHDF), Korps Politie St. Maarten, Meteorological Department St. Maarten (MDS), as well as the focal point representatives of the various ministries to accomplish the objective of this mission. 

The team comprised of a Short Time Project Manager or ERP 1, a Financial Management specialsit, a Finance Analysist, a Senior Social Safeguards specialist, a Senior Technical Specialist and consultant. Oversight of the team from Washington was provided by the Senior DRM Specialist and Task Team Leader.

Independence vote rolls released in New Caledonia

• hare on Linked In

Town halls across New Caledonia have published the provisional rolls for the November referendum on independence from France.

Photo: RNZ/ Adrienne Baron

Until 9 August, it is still possible to ask to be registered or to demand that names be struck off.

The rolls are restricted to long-term residents and include more than 173,000 names compared to the general roll which lists more than 210,000 voters.

The final rolls for the plebiscite will be released on the last day of August.

The rolls have been vetted by commissions appointed by the French state after a prolonged period of concern over their make-up.

The pro-independence movement had accused the authorities of allowing thousands of people to be enrolled despite them failing to meet the residency requirements.

The Decolonisation Papers: U.S. Virgin Islands Statement to the United Nations Conference against Racism - South Africa 2001

From the Archives

"We remain confidant...that this World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance can forge a new global awakening, and conclude an agreement establishing a mutually acceptable mechanism to redress the damages caused over the centuries."

Statement of the U.S. Virgin Islands 

 Dr. Carlyle G. Corbin, Jr.

Minister of State for External Affairs

Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands

in the

general debate

United Nations
World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,

Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

Durban, Republic of South Africa

September 2001

(actual delivery)

Madam President, 

Excellencies, 

Representatives of Non-Governmental Organisations,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I bring warmest greetings from the government and people of the Virgin Islands, and wish to congratulate you as  Minister for Foreign Affairs of South Africa on your election to chair this World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.

My delegation joins with the many expressions of condolence on the passing of our elder Govan Mbeki, a hero to our people throughout the diaspora.

We wish to thank the member states of this Assembly for facilitating our participation in these historic deliberations as an associate member of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean UN-ECLAC.

The themes of this conference are of particular relevance to the Virgin Islands, emerging as we did from centuries of slavery as the former Danish West Indies. In fact, it was only a few months ago, on 3rd July that we celebrated the 153rd anniversary of our emancipation from that brutal system - an event we commemorate each year to pay homage to the bravery of our forefathers in taking back their freedom. Our ancestors, who originated from the area between Upper Guinea through Angola of the western part of this beloved continent, had been forcibly uprooted from their homes and transported via the infamous trans Atlantic slave route to the Caribbean.

They were but a portion of the millions of Africans who were taken against their will and forced into slavery - clearly a blatant abuse against humanity.

As so eloquently observed by the non-governmental organization Africa Action, "the enslavement of Africans was a unique tragedy in the history of humanity which is unparalleled not only because of Its abhorrent barbarism, but also in terms of its enormous magnitude, its institutionalized nature, its transnational dimension, and especially its negation of the very essence of the human nature of Africans and African descendents. " 

UNESCO reminds us that this barbaric system could not have lasted as long as it did had it not been accompanied by an ideology of moral justification and a legal apparatus as its underpinning.

In the face of these facts, we concur with the view expressed in the Declaration of the African Regional Preparatory Meeting held in Dakar, Senegal last January that "the first logical and credible step to be taken at this juncture of our collective struggle is for the World Conference against Racism to declare solemnly that the international community as a whole fully recognizes the historical injustices of the slave trade, " and that "colonialism and apartheid are among the most serious and massive institutionalized forms of human rights violations."

We note that some express an apprehension in addressing the issue of remedial action, despite this overwhelming evidence. We note that others appear to practice a sort of selectivity of memory of the objective reality of their role in this difficult and tragic period of history.

We remain confidant, however, that this World Conference against Racism, Racial discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance can forge a new global awakening, and conclude an agreement establishing a mutually acceptable mechanism to redress the damages caused over the centuries.

Madam President,

Among the many issues contained in the draft Programme of Action before us is the call for "the creation and implementation of a programme to restore to the country of origin the many invaluable art objects, historical artifacts, and documents that have been unjustly removed from Africa and the Americas... over the centuries, and the provision of financial assistance to equip the relevant states with museums and related facilities that will be required to preserve and store those articles properly. "

In this connection, my government has entered into two agreements with the Kingdom of Denmark for the preservation and repatriation of the historical documents and artifacts removed from the former Danish West Indies during the period of Danish rule. It is our view that the consummation of these two bilateral agreements with Denmark, and a third under consideration, serve as an important first step, in the full implementation of proposed remedies contained in the draft programme of action of this conference. We applaud the Government of Denmark for their enlightened cooperation thus far, and look forward to the expansion of such programmes in future.

Madam/Mr. President,

Throughout the draft declaration and program of action, and in a number of the national statements in the general debate, are numerous acknowledgments of colonialism as a past practice. But colonialism should not be viewed in the past tense alone. It is very much a present condition as well.

There remain some 17 non-self-governing territories, mostly in the Caribbean and Pacific regions under formal review by the United Nations General Assembly under its Agenda Item 18. A Special Committee on Decolonization which was so important to the successful self determination and subsequent emergence of African and Caribbean states in the 1960s through the independence of Namibia at the beginning of the 1990s still remains seized on this matter.

The political inequality of these remaining territories is an unfortunate holdover from the last millennium, and still very much a feature of the new millennium. The General Assembly has a sacred obligation to ensure that the people of these territories achieve absolute political equality consistent with international law. The successful constituent election in East Timor on 30th August is an example of the successful implementation of that mandate, and evidence of the critical role the United Nations can play in this process if the political will exists on the part of the relevant member States to implement their international legal obligations.

In this connection, we are pleased that negotiations have resulted in the retention of the paragraph in the draft Declaration of this conference referencing the 1960 Decolonization Declaration, consistent with the United Nations Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the first International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism declared by the General Assembly from 1990 - 2000, and the current International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism for the period 2001- 2010.

Decolonization remains the unfinished business of the United Nations. We sincerely hope that delegations bear this fact in mind with a renewed sense of awareness.

Madam President,

In closing, I wish to recall the wisdom of the Jamaican/Caribbean/African patriot Robert Nesta Marley who reminded us in his verse that:

"In this great future before us, we - the survivors - cannot - indeed, we will never forget - the past."

And as our hero Nelson Mandela has advised us,

"With an iron will,  we can - and will - turn this past misfortune into our advantage."

Thank you Madam President.

FRENCH UNILATERAL ELECTORAL CHANGES IN POLYNESIA AN INDICATION OF LACK OF ACTUAL "AUTONOMY" OF THE COLONY

Annick Girardin defends French Polynesia institutional reforms

The French overseas minister Annick Girardin has defended planned institutional reforms which are being challenged by French Polynesian politicians.

One change would allow a French Polynesian president to serve more than two consecutive terms, which a French Polynesian member of the French National Assembly Moetai Brotherson says is a paradoxical move.

It also follows a French Polynesian assembly vote, unanimously rejecting such a plan.

Ms Girardin said the reform package was aimed at making government more efficient.

She said the reforms concern all Frenchmen people, and also apply to French Polynesia.

Earlier she rebuffed a French Polynesian member of the French Senate Lana Tetuanui who complained about planned cuts to the number of parliamentarians overseas territories can send to Paris.

Ms Girardin said the specifics of the territories are respected but there are issues where the national interest won't allow for that.

ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION OF FRENCH POLYNESIA CONTINUES

"We have (consistently) highlighted the considerable political, social and economic inequality inherent in a colonial arrangement that is euphemistically projected by the territorial accomodationist government as autonomy."  - Richard Tuheiava, member of the French Polynesia Assembly.

_____________________________________________

Richard, Ariihau TUHEIAVA 

Elected Member of the Assembly of French Polynesia 

Statement to Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) 

United Nations, New York, N.Y. 

22nd June 2018 

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Member of the Special Committee, 

I have the honour to address you in my capacity as an elected member of the House of Assembly of French Polynesia from the Tavini Huiraatira party. I bring greetings from our esteemed political leader and former President of our territory, His Excellency Oscar Temaru. 

It has been over five years since the right of the people of Ma’ohi Nui/French Polynesia to self-determination and independence under the meaning of the U.N. Charter has been formally confirmed by consensus General Assembly Resolution of 17 May 2013. We continue to pursue the realization of this inalienable right. 

In this regard, we wish to express our deep appreciation for the consistent recognition by the Non Aligned Movement for their affirmation of this right, most recently expressed in the Baku Declaration of the Eighteenth (18th) Ministerial Conference of the Movement in Azerbaijan last April 2018. 

Given the global support for a legitimate self-determination process, we reiterate our call that the administering Power emerge from the diplomatic shadows and comply with their international legal obligations: 

1) to provide information to the Secretary-General under article 73 (e) of the United Nations Charter, and 

2) to bring our territory to the full measure of self-government through a genuine self-determination process under Article 73(b) of the UN Charter, and relevant General Assembly resolutions.

 Such a genuine process would entail a direct – rather than observer – role of the United Nations in the educational program as indicated in General Assembly resolutions, and in the conduct of a self-determination referendum on options of political equality. 

Mr. Chairman, 

Since 2013, our annual statements to the Special Committee and Fourth Committee have consistently pointed to actions that have impeded the exercise of our right to self-determination. We have highlighted the considerable political, social and economic inequality inherent in a colonial arrangement that is euphemistically projected by the territorial accomodationist government as “autonomy”. For example: 

1) We have provided information on the financially exploitative relationship with the administering Power in violation of the Operative Paragraph #2 of Resolution 72/111 and earlier G.A. resolutions which recognize this action as incompatible with the U.N. Charter, the Decolonization Declaration 1514 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This exploitation takes many forms, including the stubborn retention of our natural resources in violation of Operative Paragraph #15 of G.A. Resolution 72/111. 

2) The economic exploitation goes further with the French insistence on control of our five millions square kilometers of Economic Exclusive Zone, extending their illegal authority over our undersea and seabed resources, as well as deriving revenue from airlines and satellites crossing over our aerial zone. 

Mr. Chairman, 

Of these areas of exploitation, the most egregious has been the human cost of the impact - on the health of our people - of 30 years of nuclear testing, and the challenges to their receiving just compensation and reparation. In our statements to this Committee, we have offered to supply an extensive independent report of such French nuclear period in our territory for dissemination to the member States, after having advised the Committee that the two Secretary-General Reports on the issue were grossly insufficient. 

We understand, however, that even reference to these inadequate reports were being recommended for removal from the resolution. This would have the unintended – or intended – consequences of eliminating the requirement for the Secretary General “to provide continuous updates” on the issue, which would be unacceptable to us. 

We, again, express our disappointment that reference to public information which presents the true picture on the ground is skillfully omitted from the U.N. resolutions and working papers. We can only conclude that the administering Power can refuse to provide information on French Polynesia, while still influencing the decisions of the Committee, by stealth. 

Nevertheless, we wish to endorse the position of the Non Aligned Movement at the 2018 NPT Conference, which “acknowledges the existence of a special responsibility towards the affected people and areas, including those in the former United Nations Trust Territories, that have been adversely affected as a result of nuclear weapon tests conducted in the past”. 

Mr. Chairman, 

In our 2014 statement before this Committee, one year after our territory’s reinscription, we have advised of the absolute unilateral control by the administering Power over our electoral system. This includes: 

• The authority to write and amend the electoral ordinances 

•  Inclusion in the electoral rolls of French police and military personnel 

•  The ‘strategic’ setting of electoral constituencies to favor specific political interests. 

•  The establishment of disparities in the number of votes required to elect an individual representative to the Assembly 

•  The authority to cancel election results, for dubious reasons •The governance of the 48 communes by the French State, not by the territorial government. But the most astounding electoral distorsion is the administering Power’s authority to grant “bonus seats” in our 57-members Assembly, to the political party of the day which supports the so-called autonomy status of colonial accommodation.

 It is within such colonial framework that the elections were held for our Assembly last month. We wish to inform this Special Committee that last 7 June 2018, a unanimity of the 57-members of our Assembly of French Polynesia, including the current ruling pro-France party, adopted an decision to oppose a electoral reform initiated by the French Government that aims to reduce the number of Congressmen representing Ma’ohi Nui within the French Parliament in Paris, and also to limit the number of terms to our elected mayors. This is also clearly an additional indication on how our administering Power is holding its unilateral authority on our local electoral system. 

To be clear, Mr. Chairmain, elections in our territory under such an overall biased system can in no way be recognized as a substitute for any legitimate act of self-determination, where the people select from the options of political equality in a unbiased referendum process. 

Therefore, there is neither relevance nor space for any so-called “fourth option of self-determination” to be discussed, that would aim to deviate the genuine exercise, by the People of Ma’ohi Nui, to its right to self-determination under the exclusive meaning of the U.N. Charter. In this context, we wish to recall the mandate of the General Assembly as contained in six resolutions now on the question of French Polynesia, and the mandate that must be honoured. 

Thank You!

GUAM TO FOCUS ON DECOLONISATION ON 4TH JULY ACTIVITY

Independent Guåhan invites the island community to its upcoming concert,Na’lå’la’: Songs of Freedom Vol. 2 on July 4^th from 3-6 pm at Adelup Field.

This event is free and open to everyone and will feature live music, poetry and dance from local artists. This concert is part of Independent Guåhan’s community outreach around decolonization.

This July 4^th, rather than celebrate the independent of another, let us reflect on our island’s need for decolonization.

Independent Guåhan is looking for volunteers to help make this concert a success. If you are able to volunteer or would like to learn more please email independentguahan@gmail.com.

HAWAI'I - 'THE THEFT OF A NATION' HISTORICAL DRAMA

VIRGIN ISLANDS ECONOMY BENEFITS FROM ASIAN PRESENCE

Knowing On Which Side the BVI’s Bread is Buttered

A Case for Economic Diplomacy

By Elise Donovan

When the BVI Government decided in 2013 to open it’s office in Asia, it estimated that somewhere in the range of 40 to 60 percent of the BVI’s financial services business originated from China and rest of the Asia Pacific region.

Last year with the publishing of the London-based Capital Economics report, Creating Value: the BVI’s Global Contribution, we were able to concretize that figure to 41 percent specifically. Forty-one percent of the BVI’s financial services business or at least 25 cents out of every dollar of the 60+ percent in revenues going into the BVI’s Treasury to support schools, hospitals, roads, infrastructural development and Government salaries among other things come from China and the rest of Asia.

According to the Capital Economics report, China alone (including Hong Kong and Macau) accounts for 35 percent of the global business coming to the BVI. As a services based economy, that makes China the BVI’s most important trading partner and, to be absolutely clear, China is responsible for the most butter on our bread and roofs over our heads.

It makes sense to align economically with the country offering more opportunities to invigorate, diversify and grow the BVI’s economy. Investing resources in strengthening the BVI/China partnership is not only strategic, but also basic common sense. The benefits accrue to all - they trickle up, down and across the BVI economy.

With few exceptions, countries across the globe have been pivoting to China to get a slice of its growing economic pie. This is with good reason. China is the world’s second largest economy (and according to the IMF, the largest when corrected for purchasing power parity) and has the largest share, and growing, of the globe’s wealthy consumers among its 1.42 billion people.

China in turn has been going global for the last 30 years and has been the driving force behind many large infrastructural projects across Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas, including in some of our own Caribbean countries. Even the City of London has the China stamp on it.

China’s innovation, sophistication, technological advancement and astuteness of its business leaders is unparalleled by any country in the world. Not to mention that its top tiered cities, high speed railways and airports make its Western counterparts look like mere second and third runner-ups.

According to one of the lead economists, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is now open to any country to participate, is and will continue to be the most important and impactful macro-economic undertaking in the world, for at least the next ten years. Estimates are that funding for the BRI promises to be in the trillions of US dollars and would require mobilising the world’s capital markets.

The BRI provides enormous opportunities to participate for a wide range of businesses, from small and medium-sized enterprises to multinational corporations. Investors everywhere are devising ways to incorporate the strategy into their development plans.

The BRI represents a great opportunity for the BVI’s new micro business companies and for its traditional business companies, which for three decades have proven successful for Chinese investors and corporations doing cross-border trade. According to UNCTAD World Investment Reports, the BVI was the second largest investor in China from 2006 to 2012 for inward foreign direct investment (FDI) and the fifth largest for outward FDI in 2012. Recent statistics from China indicate that the BVI still remains in the top ten for both inward and outward China FDI flows. In simple terms, this means that when Chinese, state and private enterprises, want to do business outside of China, they use BVI companies. And when they want to partner with investors and bring business into China, they also use BVI companies. Other investors going into China also use BVI companies.

While the BVI is in pole position, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. With the increasing fierce competition and threats to BVI business, it was critical for the Premier to spend the last two weeks building confidence in the BVI brand in our largest market as he traveled to five cities, pounding the pavement from early in the morning to late at night, making the BVI’s case to government officials, entrepreneurs and investors in meetings, lunches, dinners and giving 12 speeches and remarks to collectively over 1000 business leaders. The theme of the mission in China and Asia was clear, we’ve been your partner for the last 30 years and we will continue to be your international partner as we move into the digital era.

Some are trying to create jurisdictional arbitrage because of the UK’s recent moves, but the BVI will continue to put emphasis on its most important market while it still explores other emerging markets.

It’s not just the financial services business, but countries are also vying for the Chinese tourism market. China is now the largest tourism source market in the world and accounts for 21 percent of the world’s international tourism spending. According to the World Tourism Organisation, in 2012, China became the world's top spender in international tourism and has remained so ever since. In 2016 Chinese made 135 million trips overseas (including for cruises) and spent US $261 billion on their holidays abroad. The BVI is trying to tap into this front too and has applied for Approved Destination Status to be able to market its tourism product in China. To further demonstrate its commitment, the BVI Government recently approved visa-free access for Chinese travelers to the BVI for tourism and business purposes.

The United Kingdom itself has already ramped up its efforts and China presence, driving its Great Innovation campaign to secure its share of China’s great economic pie in investment, tourism and financial services. At last year’s Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, London and Hong Kong locked horns over which city should be the Belt and Road’s financial hub. Whether London or Hong Kong, BVI’s business companies are positioned to be the vehicles of choice for the BRI cross border transactions. And like the UK, the BVI will continue to shore up its efforts in China.

Why did the Premier prioritize going to China and Asia over going to London? The answer is simple: He clearly knows on which side the BVI’s bread is buttered.

Elise Donovan is the director of BVI House Asia and the Asia Pacific Regional Representative. She has been based in Asia for the last four and a half years.

U.S. unilateral power wants to stop cockfighting in U.S. colonies

US House passes ban on cockfighting, angering Guam

The United States Congress has passed a sweeping benefit reform bill that includes a provision to ban cockfighting in Pacific territories.

The practice of setting two roosters against each other in death matches is already banned in all 50 states, but Guam refuses to enact any such measures.

On the US-controlled island, cockfighting is closely tied to religious events and mainly held at village fiestas, with Guam law giving blanket approval for events on church holidays.

The ban is contained in a bill that requires low-income people to work 20-hours a week or enrol in education before they can apply for the federal food stamp programme.

In a statement, Guam's congresswoman Madelleine Bordallo says House Republicans have chosen to force a cockfighting ban on Guam against its will.

She says because US territories are not allowed to vote in Congress, the move is paternalistic and deeply unfair.

However, the bill is unlikely to pass in the Senate, where it needs 60 votes, with Democrats and some Republicans saying they will vote against it.

FRANCE TO REDUCE REPRESENTATION OF COLONIES IN PARIS

Tahiti's political parties speak out against French reforms

French Polynesia's political parties have spoken out against French reform plans which would cut the number of parliamentary representatives.

The plans by the French government for a more efficient administration also call for limits to the number of terms mayors can serve.

A French Polynesian member of the French Senate representing the ruling Tapura Huiraatira party Lana Tetuanui says the plan amounts to a muzzling of democracy.

She said however she was pleased that the territory's representatives were unanimous in their opposition.

A pro-independence opposition politician Antony Geros said France should not interfere in local politics, referring to the repeated reelection of Oscar Temaru as the mayor of Faaa.

As such a reform would supersede French Polynesian rules for the top job, Edouard Fritch could become eligible to run for the presidency again in 2023.

He had earlier said the current term was his last one.

DECOLONISATION IMPLEMENTATION STRESSED AT U.N. HEARING

united nations press release

MEETINGS COVERAGE

GA/COL/3327

22 JUNE 2018

• GENERAL ASSEMBLY
 
• SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION

2018 SESSION, 10TH MEETING (AM)

Special Committee on Decolonization Approves 22 Draft Resolutions, Decisions as It Concludes Two-Week Session

The Special Committee on Decolonization concluded its 2018 substantive session today, having approved a total of 22 draft resolutions and decisions on lingering self‑determination questions in Non‑Self‑Governing Territories spanning Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific and beyond for submission to the General Assembly.

Wrapping up its work, the 24‑member panel — 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 — approved draft resolutions on New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands.  It also approved a set of draft conclusions and recommendations emanating from its recent Pacific Regional Seminar on the implementation of the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism — deciding to annex them to its main report to the General Assembly’s seventy‑third session — and approved a wide‑ranging text on the broader implementation of the Declaration.

By the terms of that text, titled “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”, the General Assembly would reaffirm its resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960 as well as all other resolutions on decolonization, reiterating that the existence of colonialism in any form or manifestation — including economic exploitation — was incompatible with the Declaration, the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  It would reaffirm its determination to take all necessary steps to bring about the complete and speedy eradication of colonialism, and support the aspirations of peoples living under colonial rule around the world.  Among other things, the Assembly would call on the administering Powers of the 17 remaining Non‑Self‑Governing Territories to develop and finalize work programmes — on a case‑by‑case basis — to facilitate implementation of all relevant decolonization resolutions.

The case‑by‑case approach took centre stage during the Special Committee’s consideration of the question of French Polynesia, as Carlyle Corbin of the Dependency Studies Project warned that — while useful — that approach must not be misinterpreted as a rationale for legitimizing the political and economic inequality of the dependency status.  A general lack of action, including a dearth of studies, analyses and political education programmes, had resulted in limited decolonization progress over the last three decades, he said, arguing:  “This often relegates the debate to an exchange of differing opinions between those who recognize the true nature of contemporary colonialism and those who have made an accommodation with it, irrespective of its democratic deficiencies.”

Richard Ariihau Tuheiava of the Tavini Huiraatira Group, an elected member of the French Polynesia Assembly, outlined actions that continued to impede that Territory’s independence and sovereignty.  He said the administering Power, France, continued to control its resources and to insist on control over undersea and seabed resources, recalling that the most egregious of its activities had been 30 years of nuclear testing that had impacted the health of native French Polynesians.  Expressing concern that the administering Power refused to provide information on the situation on the ground, he said it also maintained full control over the Territory’s “so‑called elections”, held in May 2018.

A second petitioner, Manuel Terrai of the Délégué aux Affaires Internationales, Européennes et du Pacifique, struck a different tone, citing both economic improvements and rapidly advancing self‑governance in French Polynesia.  The territorial Government had been actively involved in enhancing its autonomy, he said, pointing out that people had elected 57 representatives to the French Polynesia Assembly, who had in turn elected the President.  “Our elections are free and democratic,” he said, stressing that French Polynesia should not be classified as a Territory to be decolonized.  He voiced concern that, despite the people’s free expression, members of the Special Committee continued to insist that French Polynesia was not autonomous.

Also addressing the Special Committee was Faipule Afega Gaualofa, Ulu (Titular Head) of Tokelau, a group of atolls in the South Pacific Ocean.  Emphasizing that the Territory’s people would never give up their aspiration for self‑determination — and that it was “heading in the right direction” — he nevertheless cautioned that more work was required to strengthen Tokelau’s local capacity, infrastructure and economic development.  Referring to the Territory’s warm relationship with the administering Power, New Zealand, he asked the Special Committee to encourage the United Nations system to assist Tokelau and not exclude it from accessing global financing assistance, including climate and environmental assistance.

New Zealand’s representative — the only delegate from an administering Power to formally address the Special Committee during its two‑week session — summarized support provided to Tokelau over the past year, recalling that in 2017, his country had decided to scale up the position of Administrator and appoint someone for whom that role would be the sole focus.  In accordance with its obligations under the United Nations Charter, New Zealand had progressively devolved its administrative powers to Tokelau over the past three decades, supporting the Territory’s development of its own governance institutions.  While the 2006 referendum had narrowly missed the two‑thirds majority needed to change the Territory’s status, he emphasized that New Zealand had taken note of the close results and supported the will of the people to achieve even greater self‑governance.

In other business, Cuba’s representative delivered a summary of the Special Committee’s visiting mission to New Caledonia from 12 to 16 March 2018.

Also addressing the Special Committee today were Roch Wamytan of the Congress of New Caledonia and Mickael Forrest of the Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste.

Representatives of Venezuela, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Sierra Leone, Indonesia and Ecuador also participated.

Question of New Caledonia

As the Special Committee took up the question of New Caledonia, members had before them a working paper on that item (document A/AC.109/2018/11).

HUMBERTO RIVERO ROSARIO (Cuba), leader of the visiting mission to New Caledonia, introduced the report on the visit (document A/AC./109/2018/20), saying that its objective was to gather first‑hand information on the situation in the Territory in relation to implementation of the 1998 Nouméa Accord.  It had also been agreed that the mission would build on the conclusions and recommendations of the previous mission, in 2014, and assess the current situation on the ground.

The mission comprised four members of the Special Committee — Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq and Papua New Guinea — accompanied by two staff from the Secretariat, he said.  Its programme consisted of 35 meetings in five days, he said, noting that members had met with the High Commissioner, the territorial Government, the president of the Congress, the Customary Senate, and municipal authorities, among many others.  The mission had also visited a number of projects and initiatives, including a public school and a solar power plant, he added.

In its conclusions, the visiting mission observed that the overall security situation in New Caledonia remained calm and peaceful in the lead‑up to the self‑determination referendum, he continued.  All parties concerned had underscored the importance of peace, stability and security.  The mission had also found that preparations for holding the referendum were on track and well under way.  However, many challenges remained, including the need to ensure that the electoral process was acceptable to all parties.

With regard to the referendum’s outcome, many Caledonians remained apprehensive and concerned, he said, emphasizing that all parties must respect the result.  Measured progress in the development of infrastructure, education, health and social services, environmental protection and preservation of cultural heritage had been observed under New Caledonia’s rebalancing policy, although much work was still to be done to eliminate inequalities between and within the Territory’s provinces.

He went on to say that the mission had encouraged all stakeholders to work together to ensure implementation of the Nouméa Accord.  The mission had also encouraged the administering Power and the territorial Government, as well as other relevant stakeholders, to continue raising awareness about the referendum.  Noting that more than 50 per cent of New Caledonia’s population were young people, he said the mission had stressed the importance of taking measures necessary to ensure that adequate education, training and employment opportunities were available for them.  It had also emphasized the need to ensure implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and that no one was left behind.

Ms. RODRIGUEZ (Venezuela) welcomed the mission to New Caledonia, expressing satisfaction that the Territory’s people would soon be able to exercise their right to self‑determination.  She also thanked the delegation of France for its support in that regard.

MAX HUFANEN RAI (Papua New Guinea), echoing the sentiments expressed by the representative of Cuba, said one of the visit’s main achievements had been the speed with which relevant reports had been approved and submitted to the Special Committee.  However, there were discrepancies between the English and French translations of the mission’s report, he said, asking that they be examined.

ROCH WAMYTAN, Congress of New Caledonia, said the people of the Territory would soon hold a milestone vote on their future.  Summarizing New Caledonia’s colonial history, he said thousands of convicts had been unloaded on the archipelago, leading to the near extinction of the native inhabitants.  After the Second World War, the Kanak people had fought for their rights, and later agreed to a political process intended to lead to their self‑determination.  The native inhabitants had opened the Territory up to immigrants, making it a melting pot society, but that did not mean that it had given up the right to future self‑determination, he stressed.  Spotlighting the upcoming self‑determination referendum, he called for a specific visiting mission to help the Territory prepare for the vote.  Objecting to article XI of the 1998 Nouméa Accord — referring to migrants from France — he said the Special Committee should pay special attention to the referendum’s electoral rolls and procedures.  Underlining that New Caledonia could no longer endure any further manipulations, he recalled that the Territory had been removed from the list of Non‑Self‑Governing Territories in 1987, and later relisted, and he did not wish to see the same thing happen again due to “electoral manipulations and political intrigue” in the referendum.

MICKAEL FORREST, Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS), said that the parties to the Nouméa Accord had recently decided the date of the referendum, which would be the first opportunity to be liberated from French colonialism.  “It has been a long, long road,” he added, stressing that the Kanak people must be able to regain their dignity.  The Special Committee had been consistently involved in ensuring respect for decolonialization with its visiting and observer missions to New Caledonia.  Welcoming today’s draft resolution, he said that it fully reflected the situation on the ground, but while real progress had been made, there was still room to improve technical arrangements for the referendum.  Partners who did not support independence had been taking advantage and manipulating the system in a way that was truly threatening the vote, he added, cautioning:  “Such practices are creating doubt among the people.”  French leaders visiting New Caledonia were upsetting the balance by drawing on the old tactics of colonialism.  He also noted the socioeconomic inequalities in New Caledonia, emphasizing that it was essential to provide opportunities for young people.  On economic initiatives and their respective outcomes, both negative and positive, he said the 341 tribes in the Territory must be better informed about the need for independence of Kanaky, New Caledonia.  Generations of men and women had been struggling towards independence, and the time had come to achieve sovereignty, he said, stressing:  “We are absolutely and totally committed.”

Mr. HUFANEN RAI (Papua New Guinea) introduced a draft resolution titled “Question of New Caledonia” (document A/AC.109/2018/L.22) on behalf of the Melanesian Spearhead Group.  Emphasizing that New Caledonia’s self‑determination remained an unfinished agenda in the United Nations, and was a priority for the Group, he voiced solidarity and unity with FLNKS and the people of New Caledonia as they found their own pathway forward, vowing to contribute in ensuring that the Territory’s self-determination process was just, fair, transparent and respected by all parties.  As for the draft resolution before the Special Committee, key elements from the 2017 version remained important and highly relevant, and the current text also laid out new major developments, including the fact that New Caledonia was at a critical phase and the referendum on self‑determination was set for 4 November 2018.  The question to be presented on the ballot would be:  “Do you want New Caledonia to accede to full sovereignty and become independent?”

He went on to note that the draft resolution also recognized the ongoing, serious concerns expressed by the people of New Caledonia, regarding the importance of explaining clearly and in simple terms what the outcome of the referendum would mean.  “This remains unclear and raises anxieties and tensions amongst the peoples of the Territory,” he said.  In addition, the text called on the administering Power to permit international observers for the referendum, including from the United Nations, which would be critical for its credibility.  Much progress had been made since the Nouméa Accord, he said, emphasizing that it would benefit both its people as well as the administering Power to further strengthen collective efforts to facilitate self‑determination and eliminate the indignity and the yoke of colonialism.  However, no matter the referendum’s outcome, New Caledonia must remain on the list of Non‑Self‑Governing Territories, he said, noting that critical challenges remained, including human rights issues and inequalities.

SATYENDRA PRASAD (Fiji), noting that his delegation was co‑sponsoring the draft resolution, said 2018 was an important year for New Caledonia and the whole Polynesian region.  Echoing the sentiment that it behoved the United Nations to ensure a transparent and credible electoral process in November, he said preparations must also take place in a timely, robust manner that would satisfy all parties on the ground.  Fiji encouraged the administering Power, France, to support the parties in delivering a successful and historic self‑determination referendum, he added.

Mr. KOROMA (Sierra Leone), also noting that his delegation was a co‑sponsor and thanking the administering Power for helping to facilitate the Special Committee’s visiting mission, agreed that “New Caledonia is at a crossroads”.  The Territory’s destiny was in its own hands, and the Special Committee must fully respect its decision while supporting the administering Power in helping to reach a transparent and credible referendum outcome.  Echoing concerns about the issue of French immigration, which had resulted in inequality, he said the referendum would not be the end of the road.  The process must be peaceful and those who felt dissatisfied in any way must be able to access due process.  They should avoid any kind of violence, he emphasized.

INDAH NURIA SAVITRI (Indonesia), noting the highly sensitive nature of the Special Committee’s work, said its efforts were nevertheless critical.  Indonesia welcomed its recent visiting mission to New Caledonia, which had provided updated information about the situation in the Territory in light of the upcoming referendum.  Also welcoming the support provided by the administering Power, she said her delegation would also co‑sponsor the text.

The Special Committee then approved the draft resolution without vote.

Question of French Polynesia

As the Special Committee took up the question of French Polynesia, members had before them a working paper (document A/AC.109/2018/7) and a related draft resolution titled “Question of French Polynesia” (document A/AC.109/2018/L.24).

MANUEL TERRAI, Délégué aux Affaires Internationales, Européennes et du Pacifique, noted the economic improvements in French Polynesia, including in the business climate and household index.  Tax intake had increased significantly, contributing to alleviation of debt.  Polynesian banks had indicated a boost in their activities, and there had also been growth in tourism and the purchase of new vehicles.  Moreover, French Polynesia’s regional role had seen a boost, he said, noting that it had been officially recognized at the forty‑eighth Pacific Island Forum in Samoa.  The Government had been actively involved in enhancing the Territory’s autonomy, he said, adding that the political rift in French Polynesia had existed for the last 40 years, with the autonomists on one side and the independents on the other.  All citizens had electoral rights and could participate in elections, he continued, adding that the people elected 57 representatives to the French Polynesia Assembly who in turn elected the President.

“Our elections are free and democratic,” he said, adding that the rate of participation was 66 per cent, he said.  Noting that some 49 autonomists and eight independents elected to the Assembly were focused on modernizing society and creating wealth through investments, he emphasized that French Polynesia was indeed a self‑governing territory and should not be classified as a colony to be decolonized.  The people had reconfirmed their will to remain an autonomous territory within the French Republic.  Despite the people’s free expression, however, members of the Special Committee continued to insist that French Polynesia was not autonomous, he said, pointing out that the Special Committee’s principal objective was to listen to the people and familiarize itself with the situation of each Non‑Self‑Governing Territory.  He suggested the deletion of paragraph 6 from the draft resolution, which states that the administering Power had not responded to the request to submit information on French Polynesia.

RICHARD ARIIHAU TUHEIAVA, Tavini Huiraatira Group, speaking as an elected member of the French Polynesia Assembly, said that since 2013, annual statements in the Special Committee consistently pointed to actions that continued to impede French Polynesia’s independence and sovereignty.  Speakers had provided information on the exploitative financial relationship with the administering Power, which continued to control the Territory’s resources.  The French continued to insist on control over undersea and seabed resources as well, the most egregious of which had been the health impact of 30 years of nuclear testing.  Offering to provide a report on that matter, he said the two existing United Nations reports were “grossly insufficient”.  He expressed concern that the administering Power could refuse to provide information on the situation on the ground, saying that it also had full control over elections, including the authority to cancel them.  The administering Power had the power to grant the French Polynesian Assembly bonus seats supporting colonialism.  It was within that framework that so‑called elections had been held last month.  The administering Power held unilateral control over elections in French Polynesia, he reiterated, adding that there was no space for discussion of the option of self‑determination.

CARLYLE G. CORBIN, Senior Fellow, Dependency Studies Project, noted the overall lack of actions relating to draft resolutions on decolonization, such as the conduct of studies, analyses and political education programmes, which had resulted in limited progress over the last three decades.  “This often relegates the debate to an exchange of differing opinions between those who recognize the true nature of contemporary colonialism and those who have made an accommodation with it, irrespective of its democratic deficiencies,” he said.  “This is not supposed to be about opinion,” he added, emphasizing that the decolonization mandate was actually about providing Member States with the opportunity for in‑depth examination of the extent of genuine self‑government in the listed Territories, on the basis of the requisite criteria of full political equality, as established by General Assembly in resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV).  Other resolutions mandated that the Special Committee take a case‑by‑case approach to the Non‑Self‑Governing Territories, which was a useful strategy, he said, while cautioning that care must be taken to avoid misinterpreting that approach as a rationale for legitimizing the political and economic inequality of the dependency status.

It was therefore critical, he continued, to emphasize that Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) was not intended to authenticate existing colonial arrangements, but merely to recognize that they were modes of transition, preparatory to the achievement of the full measure of self‑government.  “Colonial legitimization has never been countenanced by the General Assembly,” he stressed.  In the case of French Polynesia, where there had been consistent calls for genuine decolonization, the administering Power’s refusal to cooperate with the Special Committee should not serve as an effective veto of the envisaged programme of work on that item.  Nor should other relevant mandates — such as the implementation of a political education programme and a qualitative report on the effects of 30 years of nuclear testing — be stymied.  He said the long‑standing decolonization mandates under General Assembly resolutions should be specifically reflected in the United Nations budget.  “Otherwise, we will remain in a ‘repetition‑of‑process’” of resolutions adopted without regard for their implementation, he warned.

HELENA DEL CARMEN YÁNEZ LOZA (Ecuador), noting that the existence of colonialism remained incompatible with United Nations principles, recalled that her delegation had served as Chair of the Special Committee in 2013, when French Polynesia had been re‑inscribed on the list of Non‑Self‑Governing Territories after its unilateral delisting in 1963.  That re‑inscription had been pursued due to its continued colonial situation, she stressed, noting that, among other things, the Territory’s people still lacked control over their own resources.  The administering Power must reverse that situation and commit to the Territory’s decolonization.

The Special Committee then approved the draft resolution titled “Question of French Polynesia” (document A/AC.109/2018/L.24) without a vote.

Question of Tokelau

As the Special Committee took up the question of Tokelau, members had before them a working paper on that item (document A/AC.109/2018/14).

FAIPULE AFEGA GAUALOFA, Ulu (Titular Head) of Tokelau, outlined developments in the Territory over the past year, saying its people would not give up their aspirations for self‑determination.  The question of an autonomous government had been put to a vote in two past referenda, in 2006 and 2007, respectively.  Nevertheless, Tokelau’s relationship with the New Zealand family was not at issue, because the Territory wished to retain the warmth of that relationship.  It was critical that the interests of Tokelau’s people remain at the heart of all efforts, he said, noting that the Territory and the administering Power, New Zealand, continued to work together in a manner that promoted the well‑being and quality of life of Tokelau’s people.  Asking the Special Committee to promote and encourage the United Nations system to assist the Territory and not to exclude it from accessing global financing assistance — including climate and environmental assistance — he reiterated Tokelau’s commitment to self‑determination, while stating that whereas the two referenda had not resulted in a situation of self‑determination, the Territory had nevertheless worked to strengthen and develop its governance systems and the effective management of its public service.

However, much more work was required to strengthen Tokelau’s local capacity, infrastructure and economic development, he said, adding that the Territory was nevertheless determined to move towards self‑determination in the future and was “heading in the right direction”.  Among other things, it had put a National Strategic Plan (2016‑2020) in place and established its own development priorities, setting aspirational yet realistic outcome targets and related budgets.  The Government of New Zealand continued to support those efforts and to provide the confidence needed to make progress, given Tokelau’s small size, vulnerability and geographic remoteness.  Turning to the challenges posed by climate change, he said rising sea levels and catastrophic weather patterns were both real and imminent for Tokelau, threatening its peoples’ livelihoods and encroaching on its land masses.  Climate change had also impacted the Territory’s food security and water stores.  Climate change adaptation and mitigation were costly, and while other Pacific nations were able to access significant funding to cover those expenses, Tokelau was instead included under New Zealand’s allocation.  That country had been generous, but constraints remained.

Thanking the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and other partners for their support in that regard, he also outlined national activities aimed at addressing the impacts of climate change as well as preserving Tokelau’s language, culture and traditions.  Such actions would help in building resilience and increasing the Territory’s sustainability, he said, while also spotlighting its focus on good governance, sustainable transport and communications, telecommunications, access to supply chains, and public services.  “Tokelau is still working to determine what it can and should do itself, and what it needs others to assist it with,” he said, describing the Territory’s evolving relationship with the international community.  Also noting that Tokelau had a history of taking care of itself, he said its Intergenerational Trust Fund aimed to provide a buffer for its future children against “any ill winds that may strike Tokelau in the years to come”.

CRAIG J. HAWKE (New Zealand) said that his country’s Government had decided in 2017 to scale up the position of Administrator and to appoint someone for whom that role would be the sole focus.  In accordance with its obligations under the United Nations Charter, New Zealand had progressively devolved its administrative powers to Tokelau over the past three decades, supporting the development of the Territory’s governance institutions.  Outlining various steps that the Government had taken in the past, he said that by the 2000s, Tokelau had attained a substantial degree of self‑government.  The referendum held in 2006 had narrowly missed the two‑thirds majority required for a change of status, he said, adding that New Zealand had taken note that such close results reflected the desire of the Tokelauan people for greater self‑governance.

New Zealand was committed to supporting Tokelau’s efforts to develop its capacity in self‑governance, he continued, encouraging the Territory to consider how best to balance the needs of its individual villages with those of the entire nation.  New Zealand had been focusing on projects relating to transport, telecommunications, fisheries and climate change.  Providing updates on each sector, he pointed out Tokelau’s remoteness, saying that New Zealand was in the process of procuring another vessel for the Territory to be used for search‑and‑rescue work and medical evacuations as well as general transport.  New Zealand was also investing in connecting Tokelau to undersea fibre‑optic cables and had helped to establish a Ministry of Fisheries.  The Government remained committed to supporting Tokelau’s voice on the global stage by including it in its delegations on international climate change negotiations, he said.

Mr. KOROMA (Sierra Leone), noting that his delegation would join the list of co‑sponsors of the draft resolution on Tokelau, expressed support for the positive relationship between that Territory and New Zealand.  Sierra Leone stood beside Tokelau in its quest for self‑determination, which it had undertaken in spite of significant challenges, he said, adding that the Government of New Zealand was doing its best under those circumstances to support Tokelau’s people.

Mr. RAI (Papua New Guinea), introducing the draft resolution titled “Question of Tokelau” (document A/AC.109/2018/L.23) on behalf of his own delegation and that of Fiji, noted the important updates in the text, reflecting developments on the ground.  Applauding New Zealand’s consistent provision of critical information to the Special Committee, he said much of the draft resolution’s contents — the same as those in previous years — remained relevant and important.  Among the new developments outlined in current version were the 2017 introduction of the “Tobacco Free Tokelau 2020” policy; the development of the Territory’s “Living with Change” climate change strategy — by which New Zealand agreed to include Tokelau’s carbon emissions in its national reporting under the Paris Agreement on climate change — and New Zealand’s recent commitment to invest NZ$22.2 million in undersea telecommunications services for Tokelau.

Mr. PRASAD (Fiji), expressing his delegation’s support for the draft resolution as one of its co‑sponsors, said Tokelau was on the front line of the fight against climate change.  Noting that its quest for self‑determination was being pursued against the backdrop of that severe and imminent threat, he welcomed the Territory’s positive relationship with New Zealand and the latter’s continued support.

The Special Committee then approved the draft resolution without a vote.

Question of Turks and Caicos Islands

The Special Committee then approved a draft resolution titled “Question of the Turks and Caicos Islands” (document A/AC.109/2018/L.20), without a vote.

Question of United States Virgin Islands

The Special Committee also adopted a draft resolution titled “Question of the United States Virgin Islands” (document A/AC.109/2018/L.21), without a vote.

Implementation of Decolonization Declaration

The Special Committee then turned to its next item, a draft resolution titled “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” (document A/AC.109/2018/L.25).

Ms. RODRIGUEZ (Venezuela) said colonialism was an anachronism that was contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.  The Organization must live up to its responsibility to fully eradicate colonialism, which still existed in the remaining 17 Non‑Self‑Governing Territories, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), she said.  The administering Powers must also shoulder their responsibilities, including under article 73 (e), which obliged them to ensure the well‑being of people under their administration.  Among other things, they were obliged to report on all their activities in the Territories, including economic and military activities, which could impact the lives of their inhabitants.  United Nations specialized agencies and other entities should also speed up the decolonization processes of those Territories, she said.  The Department of Public Information must step up its efforts to disseminate information about decolonization, and all States must commit to supporting vulnerable Non‑Self‑Governing Territories, especially those impacted by recent severe weather events.

The Special Committee then approved the draft resolution without a vote.

Report of the Pacific Regional Seminar

Acting again without a vote, the Special Committee approved the draft conclusions and recommendations of the recent Pacific Regional Seminar on the Implementation of the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, held in St. George, Grenada, from 9 to 11 May 2018 (document A/AC.109/2018/CRP.1), and decided to annex it to the Special Committee’s final report to the General Assembly at its seventy‑third session.