24 February 2023

RESULTS OF STUDY ON BONAIRE'S 'PUBLIC ENTITY' POLITICAL STATUS

  

The Dependency Studies Project
 Study and Analysis on Dependency Governance
__________________________________________


Assessment of self-governance sufficiency in conformity
with internationally-recognised standards
 

Country:  Bonaire

Concluding Observations

In the aftermath of the five-year review of the ‘public entity’ status, a constitutional process was initiated in The Hague to embed/anchor the three polities of Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius (BES Islands) in the Dutch Constitution. With specific reference to Bonaire, this procedure was followed despite persistent questions about the legitimacy of the status which had been repeatedly opposed by the people through democratic expression in multiple referenda. 

The political and socio-economic inequalities which emerged from the imposition of the status amounted to an involuntary annexation through partial integration of a people into a larger state without their consent, against their will, and irrespective of the applicability of international law on self-determination which has clearly been circumvented.

Despite the misgivings formally expressed on multiple fronts in Bonaire and Sint Eustatius, and following independent critique by various scholars and legal authorities in and out of the Kingdom, the Netherlands proceeded, nevertheless, to embark on an internal political process as a ‘final solution’ of anchoring the status in the Dutch Constitution. This process was accelerated in the aftermath of the five-year review even as it was strenuously opposed in Bonaire to no avail.

By 2019, a main Dutch objective was to encourage BES participation in the election for the nine-member Electoral College newly created under Article 132a(3) of the Dutch Constitution. This was designed to project a certain legitimacy of the foregone anchoring procedure on the assumption that the BES would participate overwhelmingly in the process. Accordingly, the voter participation for the Electoral College was a bare majority of 50.7 % (blank ballots which may have been cast in protest and which may have dropped the final count below 50 % were excluded from the final count). [1] Thus, a modicum of participation in the Dutch political system may have been the result, but its significance severely limited in accordance with the level of representation for the BES. Overall, the unilateral annexation of Bonaire would be violative of the international legal principle of "ex injuria jus non oritur" (“unjust acts cannot create law”).


Also to be noted are other portions of the amended Dutch Constitution of 2018. Hence, a new and more elaborately titled Article was created, “Caribbean part of the Netherlands, territorial public bodies other than provinces and municipalities.” (Constitution, 2018). This replaced the designation in the 2002 and 2008 versions of the constitution which referred only to ‘public bodies.’ The following Table of the current SGA compares the designation of the ‘public bodies’ as they are reflected in the 2002, 2008 and 2018 versions of the Dutch constitutions (with emphasis added).

TABLE: Comparison of ‘public bodies’ in Dutch Constitution
2002-2018
(emphasis added)

Dutch Constitution 2002

Dutch Constitution 2008

Dutch Constitution 2018

Article 134

 1. Public bodies for the professions and trades and other public bodies may be established and dissolved by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.


 2. The duties and organisation of such bodies, the composition and powers of their administrative organs and public access to their meetings shall be regulated by Act of Parliament. Legislative powers may be granted to their administrative organs by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.

 3. Supervision of the administrative organs shall be regulated by Act of Parliament. Decisions by the administrative organs may be quashed only if they are in conflict with the law or the public interest. Article 135 Rules pertaining to matters in which two or more public bodies are involved shall be laid down by Act of Parliament. These may provide for the establishment of a new public body, in which case Article 134, paragraphs 2 and 3, shall apply. Article 136 Disputes between public bodies shall be settled by Royal Decree unless they fall within the competence of the judiciary or decisions are referred to other bodies by Act of Parliament.

Article 134

 1. Public bodies for the professions and trades and other public bodies may be established and dissolved by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.

 2. The duties and organisation of such bodies, the composition and powers of their administrative organs and public access to their meetings shall be regulated by Act of Parliament. Legislative powers may be granted to their administrative organs by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.

 

3. Supervision of the administrative organs shall be regulated by Act of Parliament. Decisions by the administrative organs may be quashed only if they are in conflict with the law or the public interest. Article 135 Rules pertaining to matters in which two or more public bodies are involved shall be laid down by Act of Parliament. These may provide for the establishment of a new public body, in which case Article 134, paragraphs 2 and 3, shall apply. Article 136 Disputes between public bodies shall be settled by Royal Decree unless they fall within the competence of the judiciary or decisions are referred to other bodies by Act of Parliament.

Article 132a

 1. In the Caribbean part of the Netherlands, territorial public bodies other than provinces and municipalities may be established and dissolved by Act of Parliament.

2. Articles 124, 125 and 127 to 132 shall apply mutatis mutandis to these public bodies.

3. In these public bodies, elections shall be held for an electoral college for the Upper House. Article 129 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

4. For these public bodies, rules may be laid down and other specific measures may be taken in view of special circumstances that fundamentally distinguish these public bodies from the European part of the Netherlands.

 

 


Of the elements related to the newly designated “territorial public bodies other than provinces and municipalities” is a fundamental consistency throughout the three versions of the Dutch Constitution that these entities “may be established and dissolved by act of Parliament.” This is arguably the singular feature that is consistent with actual provinces and municipalities which are clearly segregated from the ‘public bodies’ in the Dutch Constitution of 2018. 

Further, while the duties/organisation, and composition/ powers of the administrative organs of the provinces and municipalities are clearly spelled out, the rules governing the ‘public bodies’ are far less detailed, reflecting possibilities for “specific measures (that) may be taken in view of special circumstances that fundamentally distinguish these public bodies from the European part of the Netherlands.” (emphasis added).

The spectre of political, economic and social inequality and the accompanying asymmetrical balance of power continues to linger when such distinctions between the Caribbean and Dutch ‘parts of the Kingdom’ are articulated as they are in the new constitutional provisions of the Dutch Constitution of 2018 related to the ‘public entities/bodies.’ At the least, there is no attempt to re-name them as ‘special municipalities’- the term often used in general discourse on the new dependency governance arrangements in the BES islands.

All things considered, the inalienable right to self-determination must lead to a transformational process of decolonisation and democracy – or it can be replaced with a distorted process resulting in the cruel hoax of colonial reform perpetuating the inequality that the process was supposed to replace. This was the case with respect to the BES Islands in the Caribbean. 

It is to be observed that dependency governance is not democratic governance, just as colonialism is not democracy. The ‘public body/entity’ renamed ‘territorial public body’ is one of several global dependency governance models erroneously projected in the 21st Century as forms of democracy, and applied in a fashion that circumvents the inalienable right to genuine self-determination under international law. This is how the scenario has evolved for Bonaire.

The British, French and U.S. all have their versions of asymmetrical dependency governance in the Caribbean and/or the Pacific. Upon examination of the oeuvre of research, the present SGA can only conclude that any projection of Bonaire as a model of democratic governance is illusory at best. Instead, what has been created is yet another form of 21st Century colonialocracy - deficient by all measures of democratic governance. 

However, whilst colonialism remains illegal, its illegality is often a matter of power, not justice. This is the fundamental challenge to the contemporary process of self-determination and its consequent decolonisation for island jurisdictions such as Bonaire.






[1] In comparison, the vote for the candidates to the Island Council was or  64.14 per cent or some fourteen per cent higher than that for the “Electoral College.

 

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS BR. VIRGIN ISLANDS RESOLUTION

 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly

12 December 2022

           RESOLUTION 77/137 Question of the British Virgin Islands

The General Assembly,

         Having considered the question of the British Virgin Islands and examined the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2022,[1]

         Taking note of the working paper prepared by the Secretariat on the British Virgin Islands[2] and other relevant information,

         Recognizing that all available options for self-determination of the Territory are valid as long as they are in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of the British Virgin Islands and in conformity with the clearly defined principles contained in General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960 and other resolutions of the Assembly,

         Expressing concern that, more than 60 years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,[3] there still remain 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories, including the British Virgin Islands,

         Conscious of the importance of continuing the effective implementation of the Declaration, taking into account the target set by the United Nations to eradicate colonialism by 2030 and the plan of action for the International Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism,[4]

         Recognizing that the specific characteristics and the aspirations of the people of the British Virgin Islands require flexible, practical and innovative approaches to the options for self-determination, without any prejudice to territorial size, geographical location, size of population or natural resources,

         Convinced that the wishes and aspirations of the people of the Territory should continue to guide the development of their future political status and that referendums, free and fair elections and other forms of popular consultation play an important role in ascertaining the wishes and aspirations of the people,

         Concerned by the use and exploitation of the natural resources of the Non-Self-Governing Territories by the administering Powers for their benefit, by the use of the Territories as international financial centres to the detriment of the world economy and by the consequences of any economic activities of the administering Powers that are contrary to the interests of the people of the Territories, as well as to resolution 1514 (XV),

         Convinced that any negotiations to determine the status of the Territory must take place with the active involvement and participation of the people of the Territory, under the auspices of the United Nations, on a case-by-case basis, and that the views of the people of the British Virgin Islands in respect of their right to self-determination should be ascertained,

         Noting the continued cooperation of the Non-Self-Governing Territories at the local and regional levels, including participation in the work of regional organizations,

         Mindful that, in order for the Special Committee to enhance its understanding of the political status of the people of the British Virgin Islands and to fulfil its mandate effectively, it is important for it to be apprised by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the administering Power and to receive information from other appropriate sources, including the representatives of the Territory, concerning the wishes and aspirations of the people of the Territory,

         Aware of the importance both to the British Virgin Islands and to the Special Committee of the participation of elected and appointed representatives of the British Virgin Islands in the work of the Committee,

         Recognizing the need for the Special Committee to ensure that the appropriate bodies of the United Nations actively pursue a public awareness campaign aimed at assisting the people of the British Virgin Islands with their inalienable right to self-determination and in gaining a better understanding of the options for self-determination, on a case-by-case basis,

         Mindful, in that connection, that the holding of regional seminars in the Caribbean and Pacific regions and at Headquarters, with the active participation of representatives of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, provides a helpful means for the Special Committee to fulfil its mandate and that the regional nature of the seminars, which alternate between the Caribbean and the Pacific, is a crucial element in the context of a United Nations programme for ascertaining the political status of the Territories,

         Welcoming the Pacific regional seminar on the theme “Advancement of the Non‑Self-Governing Territories through the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and beyond”, held by the Special Committee in Castries and hosted by the Government of Saint Lucia from 11 to 13 May 2022, as a significant and forward-looking event, which enabled the participants to assess progress made and address challenges faced in the decolonization process, review the existing working methods of the Committee and renew its commitment to implementing its historic task,

         Recalling the importance of the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the seminar, which are annexed to the report of the Special Committee and which outline the findings of the seminar, including, especially, the way forward for the decolonization process within the context of the proclamation by the General Assembly of the period 2021–2030 as the Fourth International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,[5]

         Noting with appreciation the contribution to the development of some Territories by the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, in particular the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, the United Nations Development Programme and the World Food Programme, as well as regional institutions such as the Caribbean Development Bank, the Caribbean Community, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, the Pacific Islands Forum and the agencies of the Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific,

         Noting the statement made by a representative of the Government of the British Virgin Islands at the 2022 Pacific regional seminar,[6]

         Recalling the invitation extended by the Premier to the Special Committee to send a visiting mission to the Territory in 2019 and 2021,

         Stressing the importance of regional ties for the development of a small island Territory,

         Cognizant of the Territory’s membership in the Caribbean Overseas Countries and Territories Council,

         Recalling with concern the devastating damage and impact caused in the Territory by Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria in 2017,

         Recalling the general elections that were held in February 2019,[7]

         Recalling also the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry by the Governor on 18 January 2021, and aware of the publication in April 2022 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry,

         Taking note of the agreement of the administering Power to the proposal by the territorial Government of National Unity on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without the need for a temporary partial suspension of the Constitution,

         Expressing concern that the administering Power put an Order in Council on hold to partially suspend the Constitution if the Government of the United Kingdom assesses that the implementation of the recommendations does not proceed satisfactorily,

         Recalling relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic,

         1.      Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of the British Virgin Islands to self-determination, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;

         2.      Also reaffirms that, in the process of decolonization of the British Virgin Islands, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right, as recognized under the relevant human rights conventions;

         3.      Further reaffirms that it is ultimately for the people of the British Virgin Islands to determine freely their future political status in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, the Declaration and the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, and in that connection calls upon the administering Power, in cooperation with the territorial Government and appropriate bodies of the United Nations system, to develop political education programmes for the Territory in order to foster an awareness among the people of their right to self-determination in conformity with the legitimate political status options, based on the principles clearly defined in Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) and other relevant resolutions and decisions;

         4.      Recalls the 2007 Constitution of the British Virgin Islands, and stresses the importance of continued discussions on constitutional matters, to accord greater responsibility to the territorial Government for the effective implementation of the Constitution and increased levels of education relating to constitutional matters;

         5.      Calls for full respect of the Constitution and the mutual agreement with respect to the recommendations of the report of the Commission of Inquiry, and calls upon all parties involved to maintain dialogue and work in partnership in the interest of the people of the Territory;

         6.      Stresses the need for continued close monitoring by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of the situation in the Territory, including the dispatch of a visiting mission, in close consultation with the administering Power and the territorial Government;

         7.      Requests the administering Power to assist the Territory by facilitating its work concerning public educational outreach efforts, consistent with Article 73 b of the Charter, and in that regard calls upon the relevant United Nations organizations to provide assistance to the Territory, if requested;

         8.      Welcomes the active participation of the Territory in the work of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean;

         9.      Stresses that the Territory should continue to participate in the activities of the Special Committee, including regional seminars, in order to provide the Committee with up-to-date information regarding the decolonization process;

         10.    Also stresses the importance of the Special Committee being apprised of the views and wishes of the people of the British Virgin Islands and enhancing its understanding of their conditions, including the nature and scope of the existing political and constitutional arrangements between the British Virgin Islands and the administering Power;

         11.     Calls upon the administering Power to participate in and cooperate fully with the work of the Special Committee in order to implement the provisions of Article 73 e of the Charter and the Declaration and in order to advise the Committee on the implementation of the provisions under Article 73 b of the Charter on efforts to promote self-government in the British Virgin Islands, and encourages the administering Power to facilitate visiting and special missions to the Territory;

         12.    Also calls upon the administering Power to facilitate a visiting mission to the Territory, and requests the Chair of the Special Committee to take all the steps necessary to that end;

         13.    Reaffirms the responsibility of the administering Power under the Charter to promote the economic and social development and to preserve the cultural identity of the Territory, and requests the administering Power to take steps to enlist and make effective use of all possible assistance, on both a bilateral and a multilateral basis, in the strengthening of the economy of the Territory;

         14.    Takes into account the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,[8] including the Sustainable Development Goals, stresses the importance of fostering the economic and social sustainable development of the Territory by promoting sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth, creating greater opportunities for all, reducing inequalities, raising basic standards of living, fostering equitable social development and inclusion and promoting the integrated and sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems that supports, inter alia, economic, social and human development, while facilitating ecosystem conservation, regeneration, restoration and resilience in the face of new and emerging challenges, and strongly urges the administering Power to refrain from undertaking any kind of illicit, harmful and unproductive activities, including the use of the Territory as an international financial centre, that are not aligned with the interest of the people of the Territory;

         15.    Requests the Territory and the administering Power to take all measures necessary to protect and conserve the environment of the Territory against any degradation, and once again requests the specialized agencies concerned to monitor environmental conditions in the Territory and to provide assistance to the Territory, consistent with their prevailing rules of procedure;

         16.    Reiterates its call upon the administering Power, the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system and regional organizations to provide all the necessary assistance to the Territory, support the recovery and rebuilding efforts and enhance capabilities for emergency preparedness and risk reduction, in particular in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria that impacted the Territory in 2017;

         17.    Requests the Special Committee to continue to examine the question of the British Virgin Islands and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its seventy-eighth session and on the implementation of the present resolution.

 

52nd plenary meeting

12 December 2022



      [1]  Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-seventh Session, Supplement No. 23 (A/77/23).

      [2]  A/AC.109/2022/4.

      [3]  Resolution 1514 (XV).

      [4]  A/56/61, annex.

      [5]  See resolution 75/123.

      [7]  See A/AC.109/2019/4, para. 3.

      [8]  Resolution 70/1.

12 February 2023

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS US VIRGIN ISLANDS RESOLUTION


                    
UNITED NATIONS 
RESOLUTION 77/147 
US VIRGIN ISLANDS

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly

       12th December 2022 

EXCERPTS

The General Assembly,

    Convinced that any negotiations to determine the status of the Territory must take place with the active involvement and participation of the people of the Territory, under the auspices of the United Nations, on a case-by-case basis, and that the views of the people of the United States Virgin Islands in respect of their right to self-determination should be ascertained, 
.......

    Aware of the importance both to the United States Virgin Islands and to the Special Committee of the participation of elected and appointed representatives of the United States Virgin Islands in the work of the Committee,

.......

    Recognizing the need for the Special Committee to ensure that the appropriate bodies of the United Nations actively pursue a public awareness campaign aimed at assisting the people of the United States Virgin Islands with their inalienable right to self-determination and in gaining a better understanding of the options for self-determination, on a case-by-case basis,

......

   1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of the United States Virgin Islands to self-determination, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, and with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV),

    2. Also reaffirms that, in the process of decolonization of the United States Virgin Islands, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right, as recognized under the relevant human rights conventions; 

   3. Further reaffirms that it is ultimately for the people of the United States Virgin Islands to determine freely their future political status in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, the Declaration and the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, and in that connection calls upon the administering Power, in cooperation with the territorial Government and appropriate bodies of the United Nations system, to develop political education programmes for the Territory in order to foster an awareness among the people of their right to self-determination in conformity with the legitimate political status options, based on the principles clearly defined in Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) and other relevant resolutions and decisions; 

......

12. Calls upon the administering Power to participate in and cooperate fully with the work of the Special Committee in order to implement the provisions of Article 73 e of the Charter and the Declaration and in order to advise the Committee on the implementation of the provisions under Article 73 b of the Charter on efforts to promote self-government in the United States Virgin Islands, and encourages the administering Power to facilitate visiting and special missions to the Territory. 



29 January 2023

U.S. TERRITORIAL VOTING RIGHTS AND POLITICAL INEQUALITY

Statement of Dr. Carlyle Corbin
International Advisor on Governance

to a Briefing on of the Voting Rights in the U.S. Virgin Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

January 23, 2023
    
At the outset, I wish to thank the U.S. Virgin Islands Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for the kind invitation to participate in this discussion.

    The subject at hand is the particular question of territorial voting rights in the US political system. It is evident that this a function of the general question of the overall political inequality of our unincorporated territorial status.

    Following the end of WWII and the subsequent adoption of the United Nations Charter, such dependency arrangements as our own were to serve as preparatory to the full measure of self-government (Article 73) - not the embodiment of it. This may be why attempts at reforming or modernizing the territorial status through legal challenges and US Congressional legislation have not been successful to present day.

    Such dependency reform measures being proposed to the territorial status, as presidential and Congressional votes, delegate representation in the US Senate, de-legitimization of the Insular Cases, et al, would provide for, at best, a position of “lesser inequality” within the US political system. Even in the unlikelihood that any of these proposed measures would be adopted, the territories would not be elevated to the full measure of self-government (FMSG) required under international law.

    If the proponents of these dependency reform measures take the position that the current political status of the US territories is that of political inequality requiring remediation, then we are in agreement. Where we may differ is how to address the inequivalence. I would suggest that the inequality is best remedied through the attainment of a permanent political status through a process of self-determination where options of full political equality would be considered. Self-determination is a fundamental human right which has yet to be exercised in the US Virgin Islands or other territories.

    Only last December, the UN General Assembly adopted its annual resolution on the US Virgin Islands (Resolution 77/147) which called for public education programmes in the territory “to foster an awareness among the people of their right to self-determination in conformity with the legitimate political options” providing for full political equality. As always, the US joins in the consensus on the US Virgin Islands resolution even as we await full implementation of such a programme.

    The General Assembly also adopted last December a resolution calling for the countries which administer territories, like the US, to take all steps necessary to enable the people” of the US Virgin Islands and other territories “to exercise fully and as soon as possible their right to self-determination.” This international self-determination mandate applies directly to the US Virgin Islands even as it is not well known, and rarely referenced, or even misconstrued, in local discourse.

    This mandate is codified in Article 73 of the UN Charter, in particular Article 73(b) which requires the administering Power to advance the territory to the full measure of self-government, and Chapter XI, Article 73(e) which mandates the administering Power to report to the UN annually on developments in the territory. The US, as the US Virgin Islands’ administering Power, complies with Article 73(e) by submitting information to the UN. Regarding Article 73(b) on the advancement of our territory to the full measure of self-government, the compliance is not so evident as we remain a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) under international law without full political, economic or social rights.

    Territories such as Guam have taken the approach to select from one of the three options of political equality, namely US statehood, free association or independence. The adoption by the US House of Representatives of the Puerto Rico Status Act last December (2022) also endorsed these same three political status options. These political status alternatives are aligned with UN doctrine [UN Res.1541(XV)] and are cited in several White House Reports as the permanent options for Puerto Rico - and by extension, for the other US territories. Guam and Puerto Rico have followed this approach, and have removed the unincorporated territorial status from consideration because of the inherent inequalities of the status quo. Congress followed suit by consciously omitting the unincorporated territory status from the Puerto Rico Status Act.

    The attainment of any of these three genuine self-governing choices would, by definition, provide for equal voting rights. Accordingly, US statehood would yield full political, economic and social rights (and responsibilities) in the US political system, and could be achieved as a stand-alone state, or also as integration into an existing state. The other options of free association or independence, respectively, would provide for full rights within the political systems created under those alternatives.

    This process of self-determination is the route to address the existent political inequality of a system which has effectively reached its peak in terms of the political evolution of a polity – a system which was never meant to be permanent in any event, but rather intended to be transitional to a permanent political status. The problem comes when the temporary becomes indefinite.

    Unsurprisingly, the likelihood of success in remedying the specific political inequalities and democratic deficiencies of the present territorial status through various proposed reforms remains slim. Recent efforts mirror initiatives dating back over a half-century with similar results. Neither US Court decisions nor Congressional legislative proposals have yielded outcomes favouring political rights for territories - because full political rights in the US system inhere in states. Territories are not states.

    On this point, three challenges to the lack of presidential voting rights for US citizens in Puerto Rico between 1994 and 2004 were consistently denied, and determined not violative of the constitutional rights of those citizens. The consistent determination was – and remains - that such voting rights under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution inhere not in citizens, but in states - absent the unlikelihood of a constitutional amendment as previously adopted for the District of Columbia.

    An earlier 1984 ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit resulted in a similar conclusion for Guam. A 2006 case in the U.S. District Court for the US Virgin Islands, upheld by the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, confirmed that the US Constitution does not grant the right to vote for President and Vice President to individual citizens, but to “Electors” appointed by each state.

    In the 2020 analysis “America’s Territories: Equality and Autonomy,” eminent American legal scholar Howard Hills confirmed that “the U.S. Constitution itself allows fully equal representation in Congress and the Electoral College only for citizens of a state, making any remedy other than statehood less than equal” (emphasis added).

    On this particular question of territorial voting rights, the late U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Juan Toruella in 2014 referred to the inherent “state of eternal inequality” including the “political impair(ment) of the territory(ies’) representation to the US House of Representatives.”

    In fact, the limitation of the territorial vote in the US House was confirmed as early as 1993 by U.S. District Court ruling which set a requirement for an automatic recount excluding the territorial representatives in the event that their votes had been “decisive.” These limitations were later reflected in a 2017 U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the limitation of the authority of what was referred to as the “officers who represent territories and properties possessed or administered by the United States (emphasis added). Being referred to as possessed ‘properties elicits a particular reaction for a people whose ancestors suffered the crimes against humanity perpetuated under chattel slavery.

    There is a larger picture. Such dependency reforms that could unilaterally alter elements of the political status of the US territories, one way or another, are being pursued without the informed consent of the people of the territories. This is especially concerning in light of the potential implications of such initiatives. One such proposed measure is illustrative. If proposed federal legislation is adopted “to reject the Insular Cases and ‘their application to all present and future cases and controversies’, the basis for unincorporated territorial status would disappear. However, the territorial clause would still remain applicable.

    Would the US territories, then, become incorporated territories, by default, since the basis for unincorporated territorial status would have disappeared? Would US territories, then, be vulnerable to the application by Congress of the full corpus of the US Constitution - as has historically been the case for incorporated territories? Would this incorporation put the USTs on the road to statehood - without the formal concurrence of the people? Some analysts are asking these questions.

    Specifically for the US Virgin Islands, would there be unintended political, economic and social consequences of incorporated territorial status? - Loss of Jones Act exemption? - diversion of tax revenue to Washington? - Incorporation into the US Customs zone? I would suggest that the people should be made fully aware of any such unintended consequences of these dependency reform initiatives. Ironically, the Congress can unilaterally impose such measures, and more, under the plenary authority of the territorial clause of the US Constitution. Therein lies a particular irony that such measures are being pursued without a public discussion.

    Another proposed initiative affecting the US territory of American Samoa is also relevant. That territory’s political leadership continues to vehemently object to court challenges that would unilaterally confer an unwanted US citizenship on its people. Their concern is that this could have potential implications for their land rights and indigenous governance. American Samoa leaders from all political parties regard such efforts as violative of their right to self-determination since their status could be unilaterally changed by a US court decision.

    Overall, the clarification should be made as to the current relationship between US territories and the US. It is often routine to refer to the USTs as part of the US, when in effect, is it more accurate to refer to the territories as being owned by the US - as the ‘territorial clause’ of the US Constitution implies? It is instructive that the application of the territorial clause refers to “territory or other property belonging to the United States” (emphasis added).

    In this light, it is interesting that the French Constitution, the Netherlands Kingdom Charter, and the political and constitutional documents of other ‘democracies' (which also administer dependencies) clearly identify these respective territories by name in their governance documents. (Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten, et al). It should speak volumes that the linkage between the US Constitution and the US territories is not by name, but rather tied to the Article of the US Constitution that deals with property.

    This is our political reality reflective of an anachronistic model of dependency governance that was never meant to be permanent, but preparatory to something permanent. Yet, in the absence of public discourse, the illusion prevails that there is legitimacy in the territorial status as a permanent, democratic form of governance worthy of modernization, and that it only needs to be reformed or modernized. A sustained dialogue on these issues is required.

    Perhaps a discussion on the general question of a permanent status for the US Virgin Islands might be held in future - unless the adoption of a territorial constitution through the recently-legislated Sixth Constitutional Convention would be perceived as the final step in our political evolution. It should be recognized, however, that just as a territory is not a state, a territorial constitution is not a state constitution. There is no territorial clause applicable to states.

CONCLUSION

    I conclude on the particular question of the right for the people of the US Virgin Islands and other US territories to vote in the US political system. This is not a question of a denial of civil rights, but rather a symptom of a political status which was not intended to provide such rights to non-states. Again, political rights inhere in states, not citizens, as clearly set forth in the US Constitution and re-confirmed in relevant US court decisions, and consistent Congressional refusal to legislate political rights for territories in the US system.

    I reiterate that full political rights can only be achieved through the evolution to a permanent political status through a process of self-determination - a fundamental human right, rather than a US civil right. This would yield a model of democratic governance devoid of the existent political, economic and social inequalities of the status of “territory or other property belonging to the United States.”

28 November 2020

BONAIRE SELF-DETERMINATION DENIED - NEW BOOK BY JAMES FINIES





   The book, Self-determination Denied, has as its main objectives: to document and commemorate events that transpired between 2010 and 2020; inform about important decisions, situations and actions that led towards the illegal annexation of Bonaire; and document the consequences of the change of status imposed on Bonaire. It will further shine light, desecrate and encapsulate the persons, politicians, leaders, the players, their actions, and all that led to the betrayal and annexation of the Bonaire people on October 10, 2010 going forward to October 10, 2020.

    The people of Bonaire never chose this change of status termed “public entity” and also referred to as “special municipality”. On the contrary, Bonereans used a referendum to express their overwhelming rejection of the imposed status under unequal rights in the Dutch Constitution.

    The book will reveal the atrocities committed against our people, the social inequality, the oppression of our rights, and the suppression of our culture on Bonaire.  Imposed laws, policies, regulations, and taxes rob our people of their natural food resources and inherited land and leave them destitute. Local Bonerians, now a shrunken and displaced population, have become a minority group on their own island in less than a decade.

    Further the book, Bonaire Self-Determination Denied, will summarize Nos Ke Boneiru Back trajectory to re-list Bonaire back on the Non-Self-Governing-Territories list of the United Nations that started in 2016, when Mr. James Finies spoke as the first Antillean in the Special Committee on Decolonization. History has shown us that only  international exposure can free our people and guarantee the right of self-determination to the whole Dutch colonies in the Caribbean; Sint Eustatius, Saba, Bonaire, Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten.

Click on the following link to watch the trailer-promo: https://youtu.be/dNoiZo_hNbY



19 November 2020

Antony Géros new president of the Superior Council of the FPC


Tahiti, November 16, 2020 - Antony Géros succeeds Benoit Kautai as President of the Higher Council for the Public Service of the Municipalities. The tāvana of Paea is elected against the mayor of Mahina, Damas Teuira, the candidate supported by the mayors in the Council. 

Antony Géros, will be the president of the Superior Council of the Public Service of the Communes (CSFPC) until 2026. He succeeds Benoît Kautai who had been in office since 2014. The mayor of Paea, president of the sovereignist group Tavini Huiraatira at the assembly from French Polynesia, was elected Wednesday, November 4 against the city councilor of Mahina, Damas Teuira and despite the support given to the latter by the elected municipal officials represented within the CSFPC. 

If for this election the candidacy Géros obtained the support of a strong majority of the members representing the trade unions with the exception of the three representatives of A Tia i mua, it above all received five precious votes among the 10 representatives of the municipalities, of open support for Damascus Teuira. Out of the 20 votes cast in this election, the new CSFPC president obtained 12 votes in his favor.

 "Antony Géros is a municipal agent. He is the former secretary general of the town hall of Faa'a. He knows the problem of municipalities ", defends one of the representatives of the trade unions. " Unlike Damas Teuira, who was originally an official of the Country ." 

The Superior Council of the Municipal Public Service is intended to be consulted for an opinion on all draft texts relating to the statute of the municipal public service and to the rules relating to the organization of this branch of the public service. 

The next major project for the CSFPC is the cleaning of the January 2005 ordinance on the general status of civil servants in municipalities and groupings of municipalities in French Polynesia as well as their public administrative establishments. This text has been applicable since 2012. The opinion of the CSFPC on the grooming project submitted to it is expected next January at the latest.

16 November 2020

Colonialism and Neo-colonialism in the Caribbean - An Overview

Norman Girvan 

Prepared For IV International Seminar Africa, The Caribbean And Latin America, St. Vincent And The Grenadines, 24th- 26th November, 2012

Introduction 

The contemporary Caribbean1/ is one of the most politically fragmented regions for its size on earth; and one with the strongest remaining colonial presence. Political divisions and external control are major blocs to the consolidation of a Caribbean identity and the charting of an independent course of development in the interest of Caribbean peoples. They undermine the ‘fragmented nationalism’2/, and the pervasive epistemological dependency 3/ , that is characteristic of the regional consciousness. This situation is a direct consequence of the region’s five-century long history as area of rivalry among, and colonisation by, external powers. 

Political decolonisation of Caribbean countries is incomplete; indeed it has come to a virtual standstill. Initiatives at regional cooperation and regional integration have made some progress; but face continuing challenges. Such progress as has been made result from the efforts of Caribbean people themselves; and are continuing. Rebellion, revolution, cultural affirmation and other forms of resistance are as integral to the Caribbean experience as are exploitation by external forces and internal elites. 

The tradition of struggle serves to inspire, inform and motivate current generations. Slowly but surely, a pan-Caribbean consciousness is emerging, led by the vision of cultural practitioners; and containing the seeds of a future Caribbean nation. 
________________________________________________________________

1/ In this paper we refer to ‘the Caribbean’ as constituting the archipelago which runs from the Bahamas to Trinidad and Tobago; plus Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Belize, and Bermuda. 

2/ See Franklin W. Knight, The Caribbean: Genesis of a Fragmented Nationalism . Oxford University Press, 2011. 

3/ See Brian Meeks and Norman Girvan (eds.) The Thought of New World: The Quest for Decolonisation. Ian Randle Publishers, 2009.