“Political Evolution: The Next Phase of Emancipation”

The 161st anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the former Danish West Indies – the present day US Virgin Islands - was commemorated on 3rd July 2009. A commemorative programme was held in Fort Frederik, Frederiksted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands. An address was given by former Virgin Islands Minister for External Affairs Dr. Carlyle G. Corbin, International Advisor on Democratic Governance. The address has been made available to Overseas Territories Review (OTR), and is reprinted by permission.

3rd July 2009

Introduction

I wish to thank the members of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, the organizers of this important event each year, for the kind invitation to participate in these activities in commemoration of the 161st anniversary of emancipation. I wish to especially thank Ms. Mary Moorhead and Ms. Pam Richards for facilitating my participation at this year’s activities. I have worked with these dynamic Virgin Islanders for a number of years, and was honoured to have been asked to present some thoughts on this sacred day in our history.

I especially wish to congratulate my friend and brother Mario Moorhead on the publication of his most recent book, “He and Me.” His earlier works, Redemption, Mammon Versus History, Who Feels it Knows It, and the series of ‘Black Star' novels among other works, provide a most dynamic analysis of the historical evolution of the people of the Virgin Islands. These works are required reading for those who wish to achieve clarity on the true legacy of the struggle of our past, and what is necessary to move forward. In the words of Actress Ruby Dee, “Above all, we need those with a sense of history - those who have the longer view.” I look forward to Mario’s feature address this afternoon.

As we commemorate this 161st year of emancipation, it is my firm belief that today, Emancipation Day, is our single most important holiday because it represents the successful struggle of the ancestors in abolishing the abominable system of slavery under the Kingdom of Denmark, beginning a long and arduous journey towards the pursuit – but not yet the attainment - of the civil, political and human rights of the people.

It is interesting that Emancipation Day in other parts of the Caribbean is often the most important holiday on the calendar. Our close neighbor, the British Virgin Islands, commemorates its emancipation on the first Monday in August (August Monday). In fact, the Emancipation Festival in the BVI, as in other British territories, is centered around Emancipation Day, with many activities dealing with cultural history and the struggle of African people who succeeded in defeating slavery under the British.

International Commemoration of the Abolition of Slavery

In recent years, my work at the United Nations has permitted me to participate in the international commemoration the abolition of slavery. On 17th December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution designating March 25th each year as the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade. As a result, a number of educational outreach programmes have been instituted to draw attention to the “causes, consequences and lessons of the transatlantic slave trade, and to communicate the dangers of racism and prejudice.” This initiative was done through the collaboration of the member countries of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the African Union at the United Nations. Ambassador Crispen Gregoire of Dominica and Ambassador Raymond Wolfe of Jamaica are especially engaged in keeping the issue on the front burner of the United Nations.

This initiative was an outgrowth of the momentum generated at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance which convened in 2001 in South Africa – one of the world conferences in which I had the honour to speak on behalf of the Government of the US Virgin Islands during my tenure in Government House.

In 2008, a number of activities were undertaken including a solemn ceremony in the United Nations General Assembly Hall and an exhibition in the United Nations Visitor’s Lobby entitled “The Middle Passage: White Ships, Black Cargo.” Additionally, a conference entitled “Lest We Forget: Breaking the Silence on the Transatlantic Slave Trade,” was also held after the premiere of the powerful documentary “The Slave Route: A Global Vision.” Also in 2008, a group of students sailing on a replica of the Freedom Schooner Amistad retracing the Transatlantic Slave Route joined an international videoconference, when their ship docked in St. Lucia on 26 March.

The 2009 activities three months ago at the United Nations included several documentary films: Scattered Africa: Faces and Voices of the African Diaspora (US),and Black Atlantic: On the Orixas Route (Brazil). An expert panel discussion on The Legacy of the Slave Trade on Modern Society, and a major cultural event in the General Assembly Hall culminated this year’s commemoration. Recently, a Trust Fund was established for the creation of a permanent memorial at United Nations Headquarters acknowledging victims of slavery and the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. You would be interested to know that the Kingdom of Denmark has pledged US$ 10,000 to this memorial, and was one of the first countries to so pledge.

To this end, Denmark’s acknowledgment of the past has been encouraging. In a 2007 report submitted to the United Nations, Denmark acknowledged its role in “the barbarism of transatlantic slave trade (which) constitute(d) one of the darkest chapters of our history, in terms of its magnitude, its organized nature and particularly its negation of the human dignity of the victims.” The Danish perspective, however, regards slavery as a legal institution at the time it was practiced, and as such, absolves them of any liability to this point. In any case, the Danes, too, should share in this July 3rd commemoration as well since our emancipation, and the cessation of that “crime against humanity,” was part of Danish political history and evolution, as well – even as emancipation was not one of benevolent enlightenment, but rather the result of the organized revolt by the enslaved Africans.

The Internalization of Dependency

A week or so ago, I heard a talk show host in St. Thomas discuss the adoption of the recent non-binding US Senate Resolution 26 apologising for the “enslavement and racial discrimination of African-Americans.” This followed the adoption in 2008 of a similar resolution in the House of Representatives (H. Res.194). Neither resolution, however, supported reparations for the descendents of the enslaved Africans. Undeterred, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan last January introduced legislation, once again (HR 40), to form a Commission to Study Reparation Proposals. Meanwhile, President Obama’s delegation to the recent United Nations international conference in Geneva to review progress in implementing measures to combat racism successfully pressed for the removal of reference to reparations in the final report of the conference.

In any case, what was interesting to me as I listened to the talk show host discuss the Congressional apology was how he internalized this Congressional resolution, as if it applied to us here in this unincorporated territory. I am sure that he was aware that the slavery experience of our ancestors was under Denmark, not under the United States – unless, of course, the US assumed liability at the time of the purchase. I don’t see that anywhere in the Treaty of Cession, however.

The point that I am making is that our territorial status has caused us to internalize many things that do not apply to us precisely because our political identity is incomplete. In effect, we operate without a full measure of self-government. We are a people, not a ‘minority,’ as we are often referred to in the media. How can an overwhelmingly African descended society located in the Caribbean be referred to as a minority? Even federal statistics acknowledge that the society is comprised of about 85 per cent African descendents. Why, then, are we continuously characterized as a minority? As Paul Keens-Douglas wrote, is this “freedom of the press, or freedom to de-press?”

The fact is that we are a people who have a right to self-determination under international law - but we have never exercised that right. The Charter of the United Nations and the human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights confirm this right as inalienable. This is not based on United Nations resolutions whose effect is not legally binding – although they are certainly morally binding. These are international treaties which are, in fact, legally binding on the countries that enter into them.

Under this inalienable right of self-determination, we have the right to choose from a set of legitimate political status options which provide for absolute political equality. As a society, however, we seem to have internalized the dependent territorial status, and by doing so, we have given it a legitimacy which it does not necessarily warrant. It has served us to this point in our political evolution and development, but the elements of the present status remain seriously deficient with respect to what constitutes democracy. These democratic deficiencies are the primary reason why we are listed by the United Nations as one of the sixteen remaining non self-governing territories. If we cannot be recognised as a people because of our dependent territory status, then there is clearly something wrong with that status – not with the people who demand their due recognition as a people. Identity and citizenship are not necessarily synonymous.

Recommendations have been made by the United Nations General Assembly since 1946 to give effect to our political development and evolution to full self-government. As a society, however, we are encouraged to dismiss the relevancy of international law and principles, and the role of the United Nations, even as most of our elected governments for decades have addressed the United Nations during the annual United Nations review of the US Virgin Islands. The Bush Administration issued a policy position that the territories under its administration were no longer an international issue, and merely a domestic one – but they still report to the United Nations every year. But, if we are not an international issue, why are we still on the United Nations list, and why did the Bush Administration continue to acknowledge us as an international question by reporting to the United Nations?

We do not read, see nor hear much of any of this in the media. The fact that our political development has been the subject of international review and assessment since 1946, based on the Charter of the United Nations is rarely reported - unless someone writes a guest editorial. We must find alternative sources to fill the considerable gaps in information on matters that directly relate to us.

Status Quo Versus Options of Political Equality

I was asked to focus this afternoon on the option of free association – one of the three options which would provide us with a full measure of self-government. It is an option which is recognized as a permanent political status, along with independence and integration, in accordance with international law. These three options are also recognized by the US Congress as options of political equality. Present legislation before Congress known as the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 (H.R. 2499) introduced by Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi confirms that these three options as the only ones which provide for a permanent political status. The White House under former President Bush had agreed that these were the three permanent options in their 2005 and 2007 reports, while also recognizing the temporary nature, as well as the limitations, of the present territorial status.

Puerto Rico Governor Luis Fortuño put it this way in his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources on self-determination legislation for Puerto Rico:

“230 years after the Declaration of Independence and 220 after the ratification of the US constitution, (the United States) continues to sanction an arrangement of governance over four million of its citizens that is abhorrent to the sacred principles enshrined in that Declaration because of the anachronistic survival of the Territory Clause of that constitution.”

Governor Fortuño continued that:

“Whatever may have been the role of the territorial system in the birth and growth of (the United States), the fact is that (the) Founding Fathers never intended it as a permanent way of governance by the federal government over the citizens of the Republic. More importantly, it clearly offends the values of American democracy in the 21st Century, especially as Congress has allowed such an inherently undemocratic system to remain in place…”

The Governor went on to say that:

“…we have forged an overall and growing consensus in Puerto Rico that our current relationship with the U.S. – territorial, unequal in the rights and duties of citizenship, not fully democratic, not fully self-governing and not fully consensual – no longer serves either Puerto Rico or the U.S. as well.”
The present territorial status no longer serves the U.S. Virgin Islands either.
Governor Fortuño, in his testimony, asked the fundamental question of “whether the framers of the (U.S.) constitution intend American citizenship to be a source of equal rights?”

He observed that:

“Puerto Rico is a community of American citizens who are deprived of the most basic rights of citizenship in a representative democracy: the right to vote and the right to be represented in the political body that enacts the laws by which they must abide.”

He ventured that:

“American citizens in Puerto Rico are separated from their counterparts in the States by a wall of political inequality built upon the foundation of our current territorial status.”

So there we have it. In analyzing this unincorporated territorial status, then, it is easy to recognize the fundamental democratic deficiencies under which we are governed. We are aware, for example, that we have no presidential vote, non-voting representation in the US House of Representatives and no representation at all in the US Senate. We also know that there are limitations, because of our status, in relation to the level of participation in some federal programmes.

The inconsistency of these democratic deficiencies are mentioned, often in passing, in the local media from time to time, but often so obliquely that it generates little or no reaction. As Mario might say, we may have heard it, but nothing rang in our head. This is not the case in some of the other territories. The driving force behind Puerto Rican political parties, for example, is their support for a political status preference. Thus, there is a pro-statehood New Progressive Party, a pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party and a pro-independence Puerto Rico Independence Party. The political leadership, as evidenced by the clarity of position of Puerto Rico Governor Fortuño and other political leaders, plays a critical role in the public education process on these issues.

The territory of Guam recognised the importance of full internal self-government as far back as the 1990s, and voted in favour of substantive autonomy in a referendum, although their proposal stalled in Congress. The commonwealth of the Northern Marianas has the most autonomous status of all of the US territories with powers governing the ownership of land and sea resources, among other areas. They gained these powers through successful negotiations with the United States in the 1980s. Recently, however, their autonomy is being systematically eroded by the Congress through legislation adopted late last year. This has motivated the Marianas Government to bring suit against the federal government for the unilateral removal of their self-government. We await the decision on their lawsuit which was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.

For our part, the Virgin Islands Status Commission in the early 1990s drafted an autonomous political arrangement for consideration by the voters as an attempt to achieve a degree of self-government. The faulty process which included an excessive number of seven options severely impeded a proper public review of the areas contained in the autonomy proposal. The result, as we recall, was a less than sufficient turn-out in the 1993 referendum, and we reverted to the status quo, by default, and many questions remained.

Thus, in our present political status, we in the US Virgin Islands know that there is something not quite right. There is something peculiar, for example, with the fact that on Election Day last year we could not cast a vote for Mr. Obama – we seem to have concluded that voting in a primary election in the territory months before the ‘real vote’ for president is sufficient. We have internalized the deficiencies, and seem to have accepted them as adequate. We have given legitimacy to a model of political dependency which is far short of acceptable democratic governance. The late Michael Manley in the book “Struggle in the Periphery,” wrote that in order “to go forward (we) first have to recognize the depth of the trap in which we are caught.”

It may be surprising to many that the denial of such political rights is an issue for the citizens of the District of Columbia. The democratic deficiencies in their political status vis a vis the United States were enough to motivate civic leaders to file a case in the Inter American Commission for Human Rights. The Commission ultimately ruled that the lack of Congressional vote violated international law (specifically, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, et al). The Inter American Commission on Human Rights is a statutory body of the Organization of American States (OAS) which itself has a Democracy Charter by which it defends democratic principles in the hemisphere. On this basis, a similar case was filed with the same Commission by former Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Rossello, but has not yet been heard.

While there are no enforcement provisions in the Commission rulings, they represent a true sense of moral reasoning. In any case, such rulings serve as precedents for our situation as an unincorporated territory if we were to similarly challenge our lack of full political rights. Are there similarly organized civic groups in the US Virgin Islands who recognize the democratic deficiencies, and who would bring such a challenge?

Indeed, proper and sustainable organisation around these issues is critical if we are to advance from the political periphery. As if to confirm our place in that periphery, the US courts have continuously and consistently reaffirmed that full political rights can only be granted through the achievement of political integration, or statehood. The ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 2000 was a landmark in a series of earlier and subsequent court decisions which confirmed this fact. The Court reversed an earlier District Court of Puerto Rico decision which had concluded that the 24th and 26th amendments of the U.S. Constitution support that the right to participate in presidential elections is not a function of state residence, but rather of individual right of citizenship.

It was therefore confirmed by the Appeals Court, once again, that only citizens residing in one of the fifty states have the power to vote for electors, and thereby indirectly for the president of the United States. A similar case brought by Krim Ballantine in St. Thomas with respect to the US Virgin Islands has met with similar rulings.

The federal executive has acted consistent with these rulings, and has made important policy decisions regarding the territories to this effect. Thus, prevailing White House policy has confirmed that the present status in Puerto Rico known as commonwealth is really an unincorporated territory subject to the Territorial Clause of the US Constitution. This gives the Congress the right to unilaterally make laws for the territories without their consent, and often against their will. It is this very unilateral authority which has been identified by the United Nations General Assembly each year as the fundamental basis of the political inequality which characterizes unincorporated territorial status. It is a fundamental reason for the retention of territories on the UN list of non self-governing territories. We are one of the sixteen remaining territories on that list.

We should find out the position of the Obama Administration later this year on the self-determination process of the territories when the newest White House Report on the status of Puerto Rico is due. Would the Obama administration have a different opinion than that of the Bush administration on the legitimacy of territorial status, and the possible way forward? We shall see. It is often the case, however, that policy made on the basis of the U.S. Justice Department opinion carries over from one administration to the next.

But whatever is decided, one thing remains clear. There is a fundamental imbalance in the political relationship between a territory and the federal government. The only matter of discussion is how do we correct the imbalance? But then again, do we recognize that such an imbalance indeed exists? Do we consider that the political imbalance of power between the federal government and the territory is necessary - to keep us in check? I am especially troubled by this thinking. This is why Mario’s talk show is so important because it helps us to understand the imbalance, and to discuss how it can be re-balanced. On this Emancipation Day, I recall the words of former Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere that: “Freedom is the ability to determine your own future and to govern without interference.”

One way of addressing the imbalance is through a gradualist approach where we would seek incremental rights, beginning, perhaps, with the presidential vote. But this would be a formidable task, and could only come via an amendment to the US Constitution, as was done for the District of Columbia. It would be a major challenge to gain overwhelming support of both houses of Congress along with three-fourths of the state legislatures for a constitutional amendment. The lobbying costs alone would probably be prohibitive. Of course, legislation to grant the presidential vote to the U.S. territories by federal law has been dutifully introduced in the House of Representatives, year after year, for decades. These bills have never been acted upon.

Also taking the gradualist approach, we could seek to gain full voting rights in the US House of Representatives as opposed to the present vote only in committee. Under the present Democratic Party-controlled Congress, this also includes a vote in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House rules. But the District of Columbia non-voting delegate can attest to the difficulties in achieving a Congressional vote for a non-state, as present legislation is being held up as a result of provisions added to soften DC gun laws – to allow more guns. You might be quite amazed by the nature of the discussions in the Congressional debate on several bills that would extend House of Representatives voting rights to Washington, D.C.

Further, what about the vote for the territories in the US Senate? The US Constitution is clear that only states have that power. We are not a state, although we have state directors and state plans, and state-like treatment. A colleague of mine calls it the illusion of inclusion. But, as Martin Luther King said in his “I have a dream” speech on the steps of the US Capitol, “We must guard against the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.” As Leba Ola Niyi concluded in his newspaper column on this day, “the status quo is archaic, colonial and undesirable.”

The fact that we have an Olympic team which competes in international competitions under the US Virgin Islands flag, and the fact that we have associate membership in several United Nations agencies with a seat behind the US Virgin Islands nameplate, should signal that our status is complex. States cannot send teams to the Olympics nor can they be represented in international organisations. These things were created, mostly at the request of the territories, to contribute to preparation towards full self-government. We must not lose sight of that fact.

Statehood as a Legitimate Option

If we really want to emerge from the ‘illusion of inclusion,’ and gain full political rights in the United States system, we could become a state, or even a part of a state. But with a population of just over 100,000, as well as other demographic factors, it would be especially difficult to achieve separate statehood. Of course, there is the possibility of joining an existing state, or joining with a new state entering the union. This would solve the democratic deficit. We would have a vote in both Houses of Congress, as well as the presidential vote. But would this be in our economic, cultural and political interest? There are certain questions that answer themselves just by being asked.

But it is necessary for us to decide our political future sooner, rather than later. If we don’t decide, Congress could decide for us - so if they wish to combine us with an existing state, for example, or make us three new municipalities of a new 51st state of Puerto Rico, what would be our response? Indignation? Incredulity? Or would we have a counter offer?

In any case, the option of integration – or as we know it, statehood - is defined by the United Nations in its Resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960, as follows:

• "Integration should be on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the erstwhile non-self-governing territory with which it is integrated. The peoples of both territories should have equal status and rights of citizenship and equal guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms without any distinction or discrimination; both should have equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective participation at all levels in the executive, legislative and judicial organs of government...”

Former territories such as Alaska and Hawaii became the 49th and 50th states of the US, and as such, were removed from the UN list of non self-governing territories. In our region, Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana are the examples of integration through their overseas departmental status. This provides them with full political rights, but recent labour unrest indicates that the model is far from perfect. Recently, there have been calls for the creation of a new autonomous arrangement for Martinique – perhaps along the lines of French Polynesia. In any case, the chronic economic crisis in Hawaii does not bode well for the ‘overseas state’ model, which along with the five US territories, was in economic crisis long before the present global recession.

Of course, political integration, or statehood, is one of the three options which provide for full political equality where the people of the territory would have full political rights, as well as the responsibilities of actually being “a part of” the US - rather than “owned by” it. Many have internalized that we are a part of the US already, since we hear the phrase repeated on a daily basis. But the political and constitutional reality is fundamentally clearly otherwise. Having the US territories embossed on the back of a coin does not constitute political integration, but merely serves to further the illusion of integration. I suppose if any of the territories change their status, the minting of these coins would cease, and the remaining coins would become immediate collector’s items.

I am clearly not an advocate of statehood. But I fully respect it as a viable option because it would afford full political rights which we presently do not have. It would provide, in the words of the late Peter Tosh, “equal rights and justice.” The price in economic, social and cultural terms, however, might be far too steep.

Evolution of Governance

Historically, we have gone through various systems of governance, beginning with chattel slavery to military governance through Congressional rule via the Organic Act of 1936 and the Revised Organic Act of 1954, as it has been subsequently amended. In the process, we have moved from the era of an appointed governor to one of an elected governor by 1968 – all the while, still being governed by the Revised Organic Act which was written by the U.S. Congress.

We have gone through four – and now five – attempts to draft a local constitution - with the caveat each time that the final document would have to be consistent with our present dependency status. I share the view of those who felt that we should have followed the will of the people who voted in referendum in 1982 to deal with status first. Of course, we did try to deal with status through two commissions in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as one committee of the Legislature. Our second Status Commission, which convened before and after Hurricane Hugo, and on which I had the honour to serve, did significant work that should have propelled us into a new decade of concentration on the political evolution of the territory.

Some of our best political thinkers of today, Gerard Emanuel and Malik Sekou, were part of that earlier process, and it is most unfortunate that their recommendation was not accepted that an educational component on political development be continued after the inconclusive referendum of 1993. As such, there was no public discussion on the status or constitutional issues between 1993 and the present Fifth Constitutional Convention process. Many issues which were left unresolved following the political status referendum in 1993 have re-surfaced in the Fifth Constitutional Convention which has a narrower mandate. We should not be surprised since this was the only forum for over a decade where any issues of governance could be discussed.

My view is that a constitution based on a legitimate status chosen by the people would be preferable than one which is based on the status quo which itself was never meant to be permanent. Territorial status was always meant to be a transitional status to one of permanence. We have tweaked it, amended it and otherwise changed it within parametres, sometimes defined, sometimes un-defined, by the U.S. Congress, and always subject to unilateral change. Such changes effectively eliminated the foreign sales corporations sector, and had significant impacts on the investment incentive programme, for example. The overarching control to legislate for the territory remained, and remains, in place.

It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the issues under discussion in the present Fifth Constitutional Convention were those which sought more autonomy and local control. Some viewed them as ‘status’ issues. Again, I have always favoured status-first, but in a pragmatic sense, I take the view that anything which stimulates discussion on political development is a good thing. This is why I agreed to serve as an advisor to the Fifth Constitutional Convention where the deliberations raised a series of fundamental questions, such as:

• Would additional powers and authority be delegated by the Congress to an unincorporated territory under a local constitution?

• Does the fact that other US territories have unique provisions in their constitutions in relation to their local population serve as precedents for the US Virgin Islands? If not, why not?

• If the process goes through successfully, and we adopt a new constitution after it comes from Washington – assuming it actually goes to Washington – will we feel that we have “arrived,” and that we are “done with that?”

• Or will we recognise that with the enactment of a new constitution, a step would be made, but that we would still remain an unincorporated territory, albeit with a constitution, as opposed to a territory without a constitution as we are now?

• Will we come to the realisation that a local constitution would be only the beginning of a process to address the fundamental matter of achieving full internal self-government and the achievement of a permanent status?

It is often better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.

Free Association

As I stated earlier, integration, free association and independence are the three options recognised as legitimate by the White House, by the Congress and by the United Nations. If these are the available alternatives to achieve a permanent status, then the most logical step in my view would be a transition from a political dependency, as we are now, to a political association – given that the territorial status was always meant to be temporary and transitory.

Most of the present work in political transition has been historically done in regards to Puerto Rico, and is directly related to the political future of the US Virgin Islands. The present legislation before the US Congress authorizing a referendum for Puerto Rico confirms the legitimacy of the three options. It also provides for the Puerto Rican people to choose the status quo commonwealth - but if the people choose it, they would have to vote again in a few years, until they select one of the three permanent options. As you might imagine, Commonwealth supporters are not too pleased with their option of “permanent union” with United States now being re-defined as temporary. As far as they are concerned, commonwealth is permanent. This is part of their illusion.

Free association, then, is an option which emerged from the same United Nations resolution which defined political integration, specifically United Nations Resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960. It sets the minimum standards for an acceptable autonomous political arrangement. Accordingly:

• “Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. It should be one which respects the individuality and the cultural characteristics of the territory and its peoples, and retains for the peoples of the territory which is associated with an independent state the freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional processes.

• The associated territory should have the right to determine its internal constitution without outside interference, in accordance with due constitutional processes and the freely expressed wishes of the people..."

So far, the model of free association offered by the United States is that which it maintains in the Pacific with the associated states of Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands. These arrangements emerged from the former United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and are based primarily on military considerations in exchange for long-term economic assistance packages. There are also requirements for consultation to take place on all issues related to defense and foreign affairs. The three associated states are also full members of the United Nations.

The free association arrangements between these three associated states and the United States provides for grant assistance over a twenty year period (which could be extended), and a trust fund that will accrue to provide an ongoing source of revenue when direct U.S. grant assistance ends. The arrangement also identifies the mutually agreed priorities for grant assistance in the areas of education, health care, infrastructure, private development, environmental protection, and capacity building sectors. It also provides for the continuation of federal programs and services for the benefit of the citizens of the associated state.

The Congressional Research Service in a 2005 Report indicated that the US model of free association is based upon a legal document known as a compact of association between the associated state and the United States. The CRS also said that free association could be accompanied by a transition period in which the United States could continue to administer certain services and provide further assistance for a period of time, as specified in the compact. Free association could also be annulled by either party based on the terms of the compact.

Whether US citizenship could be retained under free association continues to be the biggest question mark. I would argue that if free association with the retention of US citizenship were offered to Puerto Rico, a critical mass of 75 per cent of the electorate would coalesce around that option – especially if statehood were denied. The Congress, thus far, has been rather adept over the decades in avoiding the question of whether it would accept Puerto Rico as a Spanish-speaking state. The retention of the primacy of the Spanish language as a state is non-negotiable, even among many pro-statehooders. Congress may be faced with that question, once again, if the present legislation authorizing a referendum for Puerto Rico on the three options is adopted and signed into law by President Obama.

In the Caribbean, there are presently other, more flexible, models of autonomy which combine elements of free association and elements of integration. These have risen to the level of political equality sufficient to remove them from United Nations jurisdiction. The Netherlands Antilles, comprised of Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, St. Eustatius and Sint Maarten, is referred to in the Charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a separate country with significant autonomous powers, along with Aruba and Holland. The relationship allows for the right to influence whether or how Kingdom laws or treaties apply. At the same time, there are provisions for participation in the legislative body of the Kingdom.

The present dismantling of the five-island Netherlands Antilles has more to do with the difficulties in multi-island governance from Curacao than the efficacy of the autonomous model itself. Both Sint Maarten and Curacao fought hard to maintain the autonomy existing in the present arrangement of the five islands in their negotiations with the Dutch on separate arrangements for the individual islands. The negotiations, however, have resulted in some loss of autonomy in fiscal matters and security.

Puerto Rico used to be considered a model of free association with the United States on the basis of common market, common citizenship, common defence and common currency. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Puerto Rico model of commonwealth has been re-defined by the White House, and in Congressional legislation, with the perception of autonomy significantly curtailed. It is on the basis of significant autonomy, however, that the people supported numerous referenda in support of commonwealth status.

Pro-commonwealth leaders continue to argue – most recently in Congressional hearings – that the commonwealth status provides freedom from control or interference by the Congress in respect of internal government and administration. They cite a series of US Supreme Court decisions supporting their position, as well as a 1971 U.S. Justice Department opinion which concluded that Congress can gradually relinquish its plenary powers and grant ever increasing measures of self-government. More recent Justice Department opinions, however, appear to have modified this perspective.

Other autonomous models for small island territories are in the Pacific, including the Cook Islands and Niue in free association with New Zealand. This is probably the most progressive of models of association existing today, providing for the maximum autonomy with shared New Zealand citizenship.

There is also Greenland and the Faroe Islands which enjoy autonomous arrangements with Denmark. These arrangements (Greenland more than the Faroes) provides for significant autonomy, while also providing for shared Danish citizenship and voting representation in the Danish Parliament. This brings to mind a discussion in our Status Commission in the 1990s of adding “Return to Denmark” as a status option. It was clear that the political status of Greenland and Faroe Islands, respectively, was far more autonomous than our present status of unincorporated territory. Since we already had seven options, however, there was insufficient interest in adding an eighth.

In all of these cases, though, the elements of any model of free association are determined in negotiation. Our best minds would have to be tasked to study these models, and develop a strategic plan for negotiations. Ultimately, an autonomous arrangement specifically suited to us would be the logical outcome. Of course, this would have to be preceded by an extensive public education programme on the three legitimate political options, to ensure fairness. To this end, the federal government has an international obligation under Article 73(b) of the United Nations Charter to assist the territory in the promotion of self-government.

So far, the federal government has not been forthcoming in providing such assistance. Both the Virgin Islands Status Commission in the early 1990s, and the present Fifth Constitutional Convention, made requests for assistance in conducting a public education programme. In both cases, the requests were denied, as was the request for the authority to access United Nations assistance. Interestingly, previous Congressional legislation on status referenda for Puerto Rico would have the public educational programme funded from the rum excise tax rebate.

Conclusion

Of the three legitimate options of political equality, I would lean towards the option of free association. While I am confident that we have the capacity to govern ourselves as an independent state, just as any other small island states in the Caribbean with even smaller populations than our own, it is clear to me that our society is not presently prepared for such a qualitative leap at this time. Independence is a state of mind. We are not in that state of mind.

Free association would be an excellent compromise between those who wish to retain a political relationship with the United States, while also attaining more autonomous powers. It would also place us in a position for further political evolution. Because of the democratic deficiencies, including the continued vulnerability to unilateral decisions affecting us, I do not believe that it is in our interest to maintain the status quo. Long-term planning is difficult, at best, when the rules can be changed unilaterally at any time.

Thus, we should do all we can to replace the unincorporated territorial status with a more democratic model of governance where the power lies with the people.Barring any extraordinary political initiatives to address our political status in the next several years, however, we will observe in the year 2017 the centennial under United States jurisdiction as an unincorporated territory. The four previous efforts to draft a local constitution since the 1960s, and the three processes to deal with the issue of our political status since the 1980s, have been useful exercises, but they have not yielded a result. We therefore remain as one of the sixteen remaining non self-governing territories in the world eight years before the centennial in 2017. I have read that celebrations are being planned, as we speak. But by 2017:

• Will we remain as an un-incorporated dependency, albeit with a constitution?

• Will there be renewed emphasis on addressing the political status options, and will there be a final status determined?

• Or will we consider a dependency constitution, if successfully adopted, the end of our political development – notwithstanding the continued applicability of the Territorial Clause of the US Constitution?

• In a broader sense, are the minimum requirements of democratic legitimacy met by a political system of governance which maintains unilateral authority by a government in which the territory has no voting rights?

• Do our people have a problem with being equated with “territory or other property,” and referred to in legislation as offshore possessions, insular areas, and similar terms which are insensitive given the historical legacy of slavery?

Again, it is often better to know some of the questions than all of the answers. These are some of the questions which are fundamental to our future political and socio-economic development.

I would further ask whether our society is comfortable with the present arrangement as an unincorporated territory whose government, according to a federal court ruling, exists only by the “legislative grace of Congress?” If so, then there should be no surprise when laws, regulations and other decisions continue to be unilaterally applied, without the consent of the governed, and often against their wishes, with unknown economic repercussions.

But if an awareness emerges among the people that the dependency status has become anachronistic, then much work lies ahead. In the first instance, there would have to be a process developed to sensitize the society of the existing democratic deficiencies in our present status, how these deficiencies affect us in our daily lives and how upgrading the status would benefit us, and more importantly, future generations. Our young people are watching closely.

Such an exercise would lead to a viable, democratic model with a full measure of self-government for the 21st Century, based on internationally recognised standards of full political equality and democratic governance. Our choices are to act, or to acquiesce. We must decide, or I am afraid that our future may be decided for us.

A good place to start would be in defining the 'We.' Leba put it best in his newspaper column on this 161st commemoration of Emancipation Day when he said that “the descendents of the emancipated Africans have the duty to achieve the highest degree of self-determination and political equality.”

It is only from the base of our collective Caribbean identity that we can propel ourselves toward a natural political evolution as a society. This is the next phase of emancipation, and perhaps the most challenging phase since the struggle which began in 1848. The struggle continues. We must remove the barriers which have been artificially erected to fragment Caribbean people in our society. We must forge the strategic Caribbean alliance which is critical and essential in the building of a 21st Century Virgin Islands. We must embrace the richness of our collective identity. We can move forward from there.

Annual UN Decolonisation Review Begins

The convening of the 2009 session of the Special Committee on Decolonisation in June marked the beginning of the United Nations annual review of the sixteen territories formally listed as non self-governing. The Decolonisation Committee adopts recommendations for submission to the General Assembly. The committee also reviews the un-listed territory of Puerto Rico, and adopts a resolution on that territory which is not submitted to the General Assembly.

The UN began its substantive work with the convening of a Caribbean Regional Seminar on decolonisation held in St. Kitts and Nevis in May, 2009. The seminar was opened by the distinguished Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis Mrs. Astona Browne who delivered a dynamic statement on the'state of play' in the decolonisation process, with specific emphasis on the non-independent Caribbean. A press report on the opening statement of the Permanent Secretary is published below.

OTR will analyse the final report of the seminar following its adoption and release by the Special Committee. It should be noted that the rules governing the seminars in recent years have closed the attendance to only a select list of invitees, and have excluded observers, UN-accredited press (including OTR) and other interested parties. The rules also provide that the drafting of the final report be done only by the members of the Special Committee without direct input from the other participants in the seminar. A UN official declined to comment on the restrictiveness of the seminar guidelines.

To provide further analysis on the issues raised and the expert recommendations offered, OTR will publish relevant papers presented at that session by distinguished experts and other participants. An extensive interview with one of the experts at the St, Kitts Seminar will also be published shortly.

Upon the completion of the 2009 Special Committee session at the end of June will provide an analysis of the 2009 Committee recommendations, and will examine the prospects for progress.


_________________________________________________________

Implementation Remains Key to Decolonisation

BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS (CUOPM) – A senior foreign ministry official in St. Kitts and Nevis says the twin-island Federation regards the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonization “as a mechanism to devise recommendations on the way forward to ensure that this right to self-determination, as a fundamental human right, is realised by the people of all of the remaining non self-governing territories so that their people can achieve full political equality consistent with recognised international standards.”

Speaking at the Opening Ceremony on the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonization convened under the auspices of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said the issue of decolonisation continues to engage the interest of the eminent scholars of the region.

Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mrs. Astona Browne said Sir Fred Phillips, Dr. Carlyle Corbin, Sir Howard Fergus and others continue to work towards bringing clarity to the dynamic of the “new millennium colonialism” that is being witnessed today.

“Their critical analysis of the options of political equality available to the remaining small island territories is especially valuable to how the international community moves the decolonisation process forward. The invited experts to this seminar should shed considerable light on these issues over the next few days,” she told the opening ceremony Tuesday of the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonization convened under the auspices of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.

Mrs. Browne said given the geographical proximity and cultural ties of the people of the Caribbean, it should not be surprising that the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) continues to regard the decolonisation process of the remaining territories as fundamental to Caribbean regional integration.

“Indeed, seven of the remaining sixteen (16) listed non self governing-territories are in the Caribbean, and the people of the CARICOM region recall the decolonisation exercise they underwent not that long ago. In fact, St. Kitts and Nevis achieved its independence in 1983, and this was the last territory in the region to do so,” she noted, adding:

“Our membership on the Special Committee on Decolonisation, together with sister countries of the OECS, signals our understanding of the process. As we reflect upon our own experience, as former island territories, the elements of the free associated statehood model which obtained between the West Indies Associated States and the United Kingdom was of particular value to us.”

Mrs. Browne said CARICOM has also endeavoured to include the non self-governing territories in its regional institutions.

“Three territories are members or associate members of the OECS, one is a full member and five are associate members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Additionally, five territories are members of the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), while the official currency of Anguilla and Montserrat is the same Eastern Caribbean currency used by their independent neighbours.

Further, six listed territories are associate members of the United Nations Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee, and a number of the territories enjoy formal status with United Nations bodies such as UNESCO, ECLAC, FAO, UNDP and others. This continued integration of the territories in regional and international institutions serves to further inform their decision on self-determination, and the discussion at this seminar on this item of territorial participation in international institutions should be most revealing,” said Mrs. Browne, who is also the Permanent Secretary for National Security and Immigration.

She told delegates that the thrust of their discussions will no doubt be guided by the mandate of the Committee and notwithstanding the perception that the process of decolonization is not progressing at the desired pace.

We take note of the internal reforms enacted for several Caribbean territories which have sought to modernise aspects of their respective dependency arrangements, and we also acknowledge that these reforms were not intended to bring the dependency status to an end. Thus, it is the attainment of full self-determination for these territories which will remain in sharp focus according to the mandate of the General Assembly resolutions,” said Mrs. Browne.

“It has been opined that the issue of implementation continues to be the “Achilles heel” of the decolonisation process, especially in light of the Caribbean-inspired Plan of Implementation of the Decolonisation Mandate, endorsed by the General Assembly in 2006, but which has not been fully operationalised. I have no doubt that the expert analyses and robust work plans, in addition to seminar like the one hosted here this week, will guide the steady advancement of the work at hand and ultimately give rise to the desired outcome,” the Permanent Secretary said.

UN Conference on World Financial Crisis Postponed to 24-26 June 09

The United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development has been re-scheduled. The Conference will now convene from 24 - 26 June 2009. The venue, United Nations Headquarters in New York, will remain the same.

The Conference will be presided over by the President of the General Assembly, and will result in a concise outcome to be agreed by Member States.

OCTs Eligible for UN Summit on Economic Crisis

The United Nations is convening a three-day summit of world leaders from 1 to 3 June 2009 at its New York Headquarters to assess the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression. The aim is to identify emergency and long-term responses to mitigate the impact of the crisis, especially on vulnerable populations, and initiate a needed dialogue on the transformation of the international financial architecture, taking into account the needs and concerns of all Member States.

The United Nations summit of world leaders in June was mandated at the Follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development (ICFD), held in December 2008 in Doha, Qatar. Member States requested the General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann to organize the meeting “at the highest level”. The ICFD contained a provision for the participation of associate members of regional economic commissions at the 2008 Doha Conference, and in the original ICFD held in Monterrey, Mexico in 2002, in the capacity of observer. The June Summit has maintained that provision for the associate members.

As a matter of background, the utilisation of this category of participation for associate members of regional economic commissions in UN economic and social development conferences was first employed in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Brasil, and was the creation of the Working Group of Non-Independent Caribbean Countries of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) through its subsidiary body of the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC).

This category was later used to facilitate the direct participation of the associate Associate Member Countries (AMCs) of either ECLAC, or its counter part Economic Commission and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), in most UN world conferences in the economic and social sphere since 1992. The level of participation of the Associate Member Countries (AMCs) has been mixed, however, given the insufficiency of available information to the governments of the AMCs.

These issues were analysed in a targeted 2004 study, and a broader follow-up analysis in 2007, carried out for ECLAC on the access of associate member countries to the UN world conferences, and to the programmes and activities of the United Nations system as a whole. These studies were carried out by Independent Governance Expert Dr. Carlyle Corbin, former Minister of State for External Affairs of the Virgin Islands Government, and founding chair of the ECLAC Working Group of Non-Independent Caribbean Countries - later changed to the Working Group of Associate Member Countries.

The 2004 study focused specifically on the inclusion of Associate Member Countries (AMCs) of the United Nations regional economic commissions in United Nations world conferences, and in United Nations special sessions and summits, in the economic and social sphere. The identification of issues of particular concern to these countries emanating from the outcome of these respective United Nations proceedings was an important phase of the research.

The 2007 analysis provided a comprehensive background of the longstanding mandate and legislative authority for the participation of AMCs in the wider United Nations system in furtherance of enhanced international organization participation of associate member and other non-independent countries. The study also formulated a comprehensive plan of action for the further integration of the AMCs in the United Nations process emanating from the findings. It was the first such comprehensive study of its kind aimed at the inclusion of the non-independent countries in the UN system. Efforts are underway to update the two studies and to design modalities to disseminate the information to the AMCs.


These studies are available on the website of the Subregional Headquarters of ECLAC at: http://www.eclac.cl/portofspain/default.asp?idioma=IN

According to Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, President of the 63rd Session of the General Assembly, "the UN Summit on the economic crisis in June will provide the international community with "an historic opportunity — and a collective responsibility — to bring new stability and sustainability to the international economic financial order."

The Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs), most of which are associate members of either ECLAC or ESCAP, have an important opportunity to benefit from the international deliberations at the Summit given the impact of the crisis on their respective economies. They should actively participate in the proceedings at the highest level.

Further information on the Summit is available on the UN website at: http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/.


Eligible Associate Members to the UN Conference

American Samoa
Anguilla
Aruba
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Northern Mariana Islands
French Polynesia
Guam
Montserrat
Netherlands Antilles
New Caledonia
Puerto Rico
Turks and Caicos Islands
US Virgin Islands

Virgin Islands Self-Determination – A Pan African Perspective

As the United Nations begins its 2009 consideration of the remaining, mostly small island, non self-governing territories under international consideration, Virgin Islands writer and activist K. Leba Ola-Niyi provides a Pan African perspective on the self-determination process of that Caribbean dependent territory.


by K. Leba Ola-Niyi,
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands


In his book "America s` Virgin Islands," William Boyer wrote: "As an unincorporated territory, along with Guam, the Virgin Islands occupied the lowest rung of the American colonial ladder, a status that obligated the United States government to make yearly reports to the United Nations." An incon¬venient truth is that an unincor¬porated status is a colonial or non-self-governing territory. When we look at the UN list of 16 Non Self-Governing Territories, the U.S. Virgin Islands are one of such over¬seas territories that -have not yet been totally decolonized.

Let us be aware of the colonizers' policy of indirect rule. In his book "Virgin Islands," Gordon Lewis wrote: "Like all the Caribbean colonies, the Virgin Islands have been governed by the imported constitutional models of the respec¬tive metropolitan centers, first Copenhagen, then Washington. The governmental institutions of the present-day period are thus colonial replicas of those models with their legal-constitutional framework derived from the major metropolitan enabling acts - the Danish Colonial Law of 1906, the terms of the 1917 transfer, the 1917 Act of Congress passed by Congress to provide a temporary government, the first and second Organic Acts passed by Congress in 1936 and 1954, respectively, and most recently the Elective Gov¬ernor Act of 1968."

Thus, the administering power passed these legislations to effectively manage and control its possessions, both internally and externally. Local constitutional reforms are merely window dressing that retains the colonial paradigm and relationship between the federal government and its overseas territories. It will not transfer real power. Although the Danish rulers trans¬ferred these islands to the Ameri¬can colonialists for $25 million in gold coins, let us always recall and recommit ourselves to achieve the goals and principles of our libera¬tion struggle that began in 1672.

Our story tells many accounts of our struggle for freedom, self-determination, human rights, social justice, and dignity. History hon¬ors and respects the people and leaders who fight for their freedom by any means necessary. Our ancestors were determined to be the masters of their destiny rather than remain slaves or servants in this colonial territory.

The purchase of a people in 1917 was simply an act of U.S. imperialist adventure in the Caribbean. U.S. imperialism can be traced to the so-called Manifest Destiny and Monroe Doctrine. In other words, a white supremacist, capitalist, and expansionist element believed that they had the "divine" right and duty to conquer, control, colonize, and exploit the Caribbean, Central and South Americas. One of Washington's imperatives is to build a regional empire that includes colonial and neo-colonial territories.

This so-called Transfer was not about the liberation, freedom, self¬determination, democracy, and basic rights for the African inhabitants. Copenhagen transferred power and sovereignty to Washington. These islands served as a strategic military outpost to protect U.S. national interests in its so¬-called back yard. Consequently, an African freedom struggle led by Rothschild Francis and D. Hamil¬ton Jackson arose to address and end powerlessness, poverty, and prejudice under white naval autocracy.

Colonialismm is an enemy of all freedom-loving peoples. According to Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, colonialism is Western policy by which the administering power controls and rules dire and national sovereignty to the people of the Virgin Islands. Self-determination is our human right, value, and objective that can¬not be negotiated or compromised. Since our ancestors had abol¬ished slavery and serfdom in the 18th century, our vocation is to eradicate colonialism -old and new manifestations - in this century. We must organize, centralize, educate and agitate to complete the process of decolonization.

The 1960 UN Declaration on Decolonization affirmed that "all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development". In addition, Article 73(b) of the UN Charter demands that the administering powers must promote the policy and condition for full self-government in their overseas territories. The United Nations must renew its commitment, merit, implement the General Assembly's resolution of 1960, 1514 (XV), and complete its decolonization mandate for the eradication of colonialism in the remaining 16 peripheral territories.

The international community, along with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and African Union (AU) must extend solidarity and offer assistance to the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. Therefore, we must come together to achieve the goals of African liberation. The instinctive desires or aspirations of our people must be fulfilled.

Have Tourism and Financial Services Failed the BVI?

The challenges faced by the British Virgin Islands tourism and financial services sectors in the present international economic climate are analysed by Virgin Islander Benito Wheatley, Program Board Associate at the Institute of Caribbean Studies in Washington, D.C. The paper is published below with the kind permission of Mr. Wheatley. The views expressed in the paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of Overseas Territories Review.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Fiscal year 2009 has started off on a less than optimistic note for the British Virgin Islands (BVI). In the tourism sector, industry reports estimate that tourist arrivals are down 15 to 20 percent in the first quarter and present a bleak forecast for the remainder of the year. In the financial services sector, data indicates that by the end of 2008 new international business company incorporations were down 20 percent, presumably on uncertainty about the future of the financial industry.

What these trends indicate is that the BVI is beginning to feel the negative effects of the global economic crisis, as the economies of its major tourism markets in the United States (US) and Europe enter into recessions and the global financial crisis prompts calls by international leaders for financial reform, including enhanced regulatory oversight and scrutiny of offshore financial centers. These developments have created unfavorable global economic and financial conditions for tourism and financial services industries in the BVI.

The nature of the current crises has limited the government and private sectors’ abilities to adjust the Territory’s economic position in the short-term or scale back the impending economic downturn that is beginning to take effect. In the interim, the private sector will have to make painful cutbacks, while the government considers stimulus measures to help propel the economy along during what is expected to be an economically challenging fiscal year.

The deteriorating economic situation raises important questions about the viability of the BVI’s economy and the durability of the twin pillars economic strategy pursued by BVI governments since the early 1980s: Is the BVI’s twin pillars (i.e. tourism and financial services) economic strategy sufficient to sustain economic growth? Are third, fourth and even fifth economic pillars necessary to ensure the Territory’s economic survival? What other sectors and industries should be developed in the interest of economic security? The answer to these questions and how the society’s leadership responds to today’s harsh international climate will largely determine the economic future of the BVI.

The viability of the twin pillars economic strategy is currently under test by the global economic and financial crises, which have exposed the strategy’s underlying weakness: over-reliance on the tourism and financial services sectors for economic growth and too narrow a focus on the United States and certain European and Asian markets. The BVI’s tourism and financial services sectors’ dependence upon favorable economic and financial conditions in North America, Europe, and Asia for economic growth make the Territory’s economy particularly vulnerable to economic shifts and financial swings in the world’s leading economies, as well as shifting attitudes toward financial regulation within their societies.

While the strategy has provided the BVI with robust economic growth during periods of economic expansion and growth in its target markets, it has lead to economic contractions during economic downturns or financial turbulence. Essentially, the twin pillars economic strategy is too narrow in scope and does not encourage diversification of the economy beyond tourism and financial services or the establishment of other sectors and industries that can provide economic growth and help mitigate the negative effects of global economic slowdowns, downturns, or recessions.

Initially, tourism and financial services were logical targets for the development of low capital-intensive industries in the BVI that could quickly generate employment and revenue for an under-resourced and under-developed society. However, after years of robust economic growth the society became comfortable with the consistent economic gains and financial returns generated by tourist arrivals and offshore banking. For far too long, government and the private sector operated under the assumption that the economies of North America, Europe, and Asia would grow indefinitely. This assumption, however, has been proven false by the global economic and financial crises that is wreaking havoc on the world’s leading economies, many of which are now in recession.

The dangers of an undiversified economy are all too clear as the crises have demonstrated after hundreds of layoffs in tourism sectors throughout the Caribbean and a series of international financial scandals that have intensified opposition by world leaders to offshore financial centers, often referred to as tax havens. In some Caribbean economies, tourism accounts for more than 50 percent of employment and government revenues, while financial services employs a significant portion of the region’s working population and contributes disproportionately to the operating budgets of various governments. In the BVI, it is the collective failure of the society as a whole to adequately diversify the economy that has left the Territory in its rather precarious economic position.

Diversification of the economy is the logical solution to insulating the Territory against future global calamities such as the global economic and financial crises. Notably, consecutive governments have dubbed agriculture the third economic pillar of the economy, but in reality this is not the case. The agricultural sector is not a major contributor to gross national product and output in the farming and animal husbandry industries is little above the smallholder level.

Despite public rhetoric about the importance of agriculture, the sector has received marginal support and investment when compared to the capital and other resources poured into the tourism and financial services sectors by government and the private sector. As it concerns food security, the development of a modern agricultural sector is paramount and should be vigorously pursued by the farming community with the support of government. However, despite its strategic importance, the agricultural sector is not an optimal candidate for a third economic pillar.

The problems of land scarcity, access to water, and labor costs place incredible constraints on commercial production and it is highly unlikely that the agricultural sector will achieve the level of output required to firmly establish the sector as an engine of economic growth for the Territory.

Exploration of other sectors is urgently needed to identify and develop other industries that can provide the immediate economic boost needed in the near-term to lift the Territory’s economy during the projected lean years of global economic recovery. One such sector is the growing back-office market. In the back-office sector, support-services industries perform back-office operations (i.e. accounting, communications, technical support etc.) for corporations, financial institutions, and technology firms seeking cost savings. India is a popular destination for the outsourcing of technical support and communications with its massive call center operations. The BVI has many natural advantages that would make it a strong competitor for back-office services, particularly in the outsourcing of finance, accounting, communications, and administrative office functions.

First, the BVI boasts a relatively well educated English-speaking population and an experienced workforce that has supported the financial services sector for the past 25 years. The Territory’s wealth of experience in the offshore banking industry would be highly attractive to back-office clients seeking to outsource finance and accounting functions to low cost centers.

Second, the BVI has the basic infrastructure required to conduct back-office operations. The islands are equipped with a modern communications network that boasts high speed internet, facsimile, video conferencing, cellular, and telephone services. This is complimented by the wide availability of commercial office space that offers all the amenities of the modern office. Notably, the government and BVI Electricity Corporation have committed to providing the islands with a first class electricity grid that can meet all the Territory’s power needs.

Third, the Territory’s geographical location places it within a comfortable distance from the United States, and its financial capital New York City in particular, and within the same time zone (Eastern Standard Time). The Territory’s international airport offers daily service to Puerto Rico and Antigua where connecting flights are available to the US, UK, and other international destinations. In addition, the Territory has relatively dependable local postal services and a variety of internationally renowned express mail carriers, including the US Postal Service, FedEx, UPS, and DHL.

Fourth, the BVI is politically stable and an Overseas Territory of Britain. The Territory’s political status and options for legal recourse would provide back-office clients with a real sense of security and a high degree of comfort in conducting business in the Territory.

Finally and most importantly, BVI residents can offer back-office services, at least in the fields of accounting and finance, at a relatively lower hourly rate or salary than their counterparts in the US and UK, where the cost of an accountant or financial analyst to perform basic functions is significantly higher. At present, mutual funds, hedge funds, investment banks, commercial banks, and various other financial institutions are under intense pressure to find cost savings in today’s poor financial climate. The cost of the mutual fund industry’s back-office operations located in Ireland, Luxembourg, and various regions of the United States, has risen significantly on labor costs and firms are now seeking cheaper alternatives elsewhere. The back-office sector presents the BVI with potential opportunities for the development a new industry, which should be explored and pursued if found to be commercially viable.

Whatever the sectors and industries identified for development, the key is that the BVI arguably requires additional economic pillars to diversify the economy and firmly buttress the Territory against external shocks such as the global economic and financial crises. How the society responds to the challenge of economic diversification will have a profound impact on the BVI’s economic future. Failure to act in these uncertain times will only jeopardize the wealth and prosperity so hard earned by BVIslanders and others over the course of a generation.

UN Human Rights Committee Reviews Australia

COMMITTEE MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL CIVIL, POLITICAL RIGHTS
COVENANT BEGINS CONSIDERATION OF FIFTH PERIODIC REPORT OF AUSTRALIA

UNITED NATIONS PRESS RELEASE
23 MARCH 2009

Australian Ambassador Andrew Goledzinowski today assured a panel of United Nations human rights experts that his country’s Government was firmly committed to adherence with its obligations under core human rights treaties at both national and global levels, and was also committed to a “renewed engagement of Australia as a nation with its indigenous peoples, based on reconciliation, mutual respect and understanding”.

Providing the 18-member Human Right Committee with an overview of Australia’s fifth periodic report on compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, he said that, at the global level, Australia had been working towards becoming a party to a number of human rights instruments, and inviting greater scrutiny by, and engagement with, international human rights mechanisms. Yet, he acknowledged that there were areas of disadvantage in the country, particularly in relation to its indigenous peoples.

“However, we are firmly committed to redressing that disadvantage,” he continued, noting that, early last year, the Australian Parliament had offered an apology to indigenous Australians -- in particular the “Stolen Generations” -- in relation to the thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander children who had been removed from their families and communities as a result of past practices. “The apology was an important and symbolic first step to build trust and good faith,” Mr. Goledzinowski said.

Going forward, the Government planned to focus on closing the gap on indigenous disadvantage across urban, regional and remote areas. A vital element of that strategy was the agreement of the Australian and state and territory governments to key targets to that end, focused on increasing life expectancy, improving the health of children and increasing participation in education and employment. He also said that, in 2008, some $A4.6 billion had been agreed on by the Council of Australian Governments for initiatives for indigenous Australians in areas such as early childhood development, health, housing, economic development and remote service delivery.

Highlighting a range of important domestic initiatives, including recent changes to Australia’s immigration laws and amendments ending discrimination against same-sex couples and their children, he also said the national human rights consultation process was an essential step towards the introduction of further measures to better protect such rights -- including those under the Covenant. That exercise. launched last year by the Attorney-General, was designed to seek the views of the wider Australian community on how human rights and responsibilities should best be protected in the future, and would undertake a range of awareness-raising activities to enhance participation by a wide cross section of Australia’s diverse population.

Following the Australian delegation’s response to some of the Committee’s written questions, several of the experts took the floor, including Michael O’Flaherty, expert from Ireland, who asked about the national consultative process. He noted that the exercise tended to frame questions rather broadly. How would the process ensure that all of Australia’s international obligations were taken into account, and that the process paid due respect to the indivisibility and universality of all human rights? To what extent was there an education and public information process occurring in parallel with the consultation, so that people could make informed responses, he asked?

Krister Thelin, expert from Sweden, said he was encouraged by upcoming improvements to the country’s anti-terrorism regime, including enhanced monitoring and oversight. At the same time, he was among the Committee members concerned, based on the reports from other experts, if such changes might be “too little and too late”. Those reports pointed out certain weaknesses in the system that might erode some individual protections. He wondered if the Australian Government had made any moves to tighten its definition of terrorism, or its listing procedures? The Government was to be complimented for its efforts to fight the global scourge, but it must also make sure it kept measures in place to safeguard fundamental rights.

Background

The Human Rights Committee met this afternoon to begin its consideration of Australia’s fifth periodic report on compliance with the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (document CCPR/C/AUS/5 and Corr.1), which covers the period from January 1997 to June 2006. In accordance with the 2006 harmonized guidelines on an expanded core document (HRI/MC/2006/3/Corr.1), Australia has included topics in the core document which are congruent between some or all of the major human rights treaties.

To that end, Table 1 of the current report outlines where the Covenant provisions are addressed in the core document. Where particular issues are not addressed in the expanded core document, the Australian Government refers the Committee to its previous reports. Table 2 sets out the issues raised by the Human Rights Committee in its concluding observations on Australia’s third and fourth periodic reports under the Covenant, and where these are addressed in the core document or in the present report. The current report also details communications arising under the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant during the reporting period.

Introduction of Report

The Australian delegation, headed by Ambassador Andrew Goledzinowski, also included Bill Campbell QO, First Assistant Secretary, Office of International Law, Attorney-General’s Department; Bruce Smith, Branch Manager, Intergovernmental and Policy Branch, Office of Indigenous Policy and Coordination, Department of Families, Housing, Community Service and Indigenous Affairs; Robert Illingworth, Assistant Secretary, Compliance and Integrity Policy Branch, Department of Immigration and Citizenship; Helen Horsington, First Secretary, Australian Mission to the United Nations in New York; and Roxane Nolan, Principle Legal Officer, Office of International Law, Attorney-General’s Department.

Providing an overview of the report, Mr. GOLEDZINOWSKI said his country’s Government was firmly committed to achieving adherence to the tenets of the Covenant and other international human rights instruments. It believed that the best way to improve human rights was through its own domestic measures, as well as through strengthening Australia’s engagement with the United Nations relevant treaty framework.

Continuing, he said that, on the domestic side, one important initiative was the national human rights consultation process, as an essential step towards the introduction of further measures to better protect such rights -- including those under the Covenant. At the global level, Australia had been working towards becoming a party to a number of human rights instruments, and inviting greater scrutiny by, and engagement with, international human rights mechanisms.

He went on to say that, this past December, Australia’s Attorney-General had launched the National Human Rights Consultation, recognizing that the protection and promotion of human rights was a question of national importance for all the people of the country. The exercise was designed to seek the views of the Australian community on how human rights and responsibilities should be best protected in the future, and would undertake a range of awareness-raising activities to enhance participation by a wide cross section of Australia’s diverse community.

The Consultation was being conducted by an independent committee of four eminent persons, he said, adding that the National Human Rights Consultation Committee would provide a comprehensive report to the Government of the views of the wider citizenry on options for protecting human rights in August this year. That report would be a key consideration in subsequent decisions by the Government on further developing human rights protections in the country.

Turning to indigenous issues, he acknowledged that there were areas of disadvantage in Australia in relation to its indigenous peoples. However, the Government was firmly committed to redressing that disadvantage and the current Administration was committed to a renewed engagement of Australia as a nation with its indigenous peoples, based on reconciliation, mutual respect and understanding. In February 2008, the Australian Parliament had offered an apology to indigenous Australians -- in particular the “Stolen Generations” -- in relation to the thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander children who had been removed from their families and communities as a result of past practices. “The apology was an important and symbolic first step to build trust and good faith,” he said.

Continuing, he said the Government’s focus would be on closing the gap on indigenous disadvantage across urban, regional and remote areas. A key element of that strategy was the agreement of the Australian and all State and Territory Governments, through the Council of Governments, on key targets to that end, focused on increasing life expectancy, improving the health of children, and increasing participation in education and employment. He also said that, in 2008, some $A4.6 billion had been agreed by the Council of Australian Governments for initiatives for indigenous Australians in areas such as early childhood development, health, housing, economic development and remote service delivery.

On the country’s immigration system, he said that system aimed to ensure that, throughout the process, all persons seeking protection were treated fairly, cared for and assisted appropriately, and treated with dignity and respect, in compliance with Australia’s obligations under core human rights treaties. He acknowledged that, in the past, there had been challenges in balancing the treatment of those seeking asylum with efforts to ensure Australia’s borders were adequately protected. Since the report had been completed, significant reforms had been initiated within the immigration system to “reinforce humanity, fairness, integrity and public confidence in our policies”, including, among others, abolishing the so-called “Pacific Solution”, improving services to asylum seekers, and enhancing the quality of protection decision-making.

After noting Australia’s new approach to detention, and its enhancements to its refugee status assessment process, he went on to note such issues as same sex reforms in the country, including Parliament’s passage of legislation last year to amend 84 federal laws to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and their children. He also detailed his Government’s commitment to ensuring the country had in place a strong counter-terrorism strategy that protected its citizens, and which also complied with human rights obligations. To that end, in December 2008, the Government released a comprehensive response to a number of reviews of national security legislation announcing measures deigned to ensure such balance, including through the creation of a National Security Legislation Monitor, and the establishment of parliamentary oversight of the Australian federal police.

Finally, he noted his country’s formal accessions to the Optional Protocol of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on 4 December 2008, and its ratification in July 2008 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. He also announced that the Government was working towards becoming a party to the Covenant’s Optional Protocol. He noted that, on 7 August 2008, the Government had issued a standing invitation to United Nations human rights experts to visit the country. He reiterated his Government’s deep commitment to upholding its obligations and engaging constructively with the Committee over the next two days.

Replies to Experts’ Questions

The first question dealt with laws in place to implement the provisions of the Covenant, fielded by Mr. CAMPBELL. He said that the Federal Government, States and self-governing territories of Australia shared the responsibility of giving effect to Covenant rights. The Government believed that domestic laws already complied with the treaty, even prior to its ratification. Australia had a human rights commission that could inquire and conciliate complaints on the breach of human rights. Where there was a breach, the commission must report its findings to the Commonwealth Attorney General, who then tabled those reports in Parliament.

He listed various laws through which the Covenant was implemented, including a racial discrimination act, sexual discrimination act, discrimination against disabilities act, workplace relations act and others, which were complemented by anti-discrimination laws at State and territory level. It was possible that a legislative charter of rights might emerge from the human rights consultation process, mentioned earlier.

Turning to question 2, on Australia’s reservations under the Covenant, he said there was no intention to withdraw from them, as they were still considered necessary. With regard to reservations against the provision dealing with separate remand of detainees, it was necessary, at times, to house accused and convicted individuals together. In some cases, convicted inmates might be returned to the centre where they were housed prior to sentencing, while awaiting a transfer. In the case of separation of children and adults, it was not always desirable to separate juveniles from others in all circumstances. That was true in cases when it might entail solitary confinement, or might lead to the placement of juveniles in conditions less amenable than that of other convicts.

Concerning Australia’s reservations on a provision requiring statutory compensation in the miscarriage of justice, he said the granting of compensation did not necessarily have a statutory basis.

He said Australia’s continued reservation on the provision against incitement to religious hatred reflected the country’s strong tradition of freedom of expression. Racial or religious hatred, while a problem, was not believed to fall under a criminal jurisdiction.

Moving to question 3, on compliance with the Committee’s views under the First Optional Protocol, he noted that, of the seven cases referred to by the Committee, five raised issues relating to Australia’s immigration laws, policies and practices. The Government had instituted measures to reduce the likelihood of future communications on those subjects, for example, by ensuring that detention was only used as a last resort. Further, the Department of Immigration would have to justify any decision to detain individuals. He referred the Committee to the answers provided in Australia’s written response on cases relating to immigration issues.

On question 4, whether Australia considered its agents abroad to be bound by the Covenant and its Second Optional Protocol, he said the Government accepted the fact that there might be certain exceptional circumstances in which rights and freedoms might be relevant beyond the territory of a State party. Australia’s view on the exact jurisdictional scope of the Covenant was not settled. The Government believed that the extent to which Australia’s obligations were applicable depended on the degree of effective control exercised by Australia, as linked to its legal basis for its operations overseas, whether that be a United Nations mandate or agreements made with the host country. In all cases, it would respect the fundamental rights and freedoms provided under the Covenant. To the extent Australia could extend them to military operations occurring outside Australia, it would endeavour to implement the Covenant’s provisions as appropriate to the circumstances.

He stressed that Australian officials were obliged to comply with Australian criminal law that had extraterritorial application, such as the prohibition of torture.

In response to question 5, on how Australia would ensure that anti-terror laws were compatible with the Covenant, he said anti-terror laws had strict safeguards. Australia also had a monitoring body within the Prime Minister’s portfolio to review counter-terrorism legislation. Law enforcement and security authorities were subject to oversight by an ombudsman and Inspector General of intelligence and security. The Council of Australian Governments would study the outcome of a review of the anti-terrorism bill of 2005, and that would encompass State and territorial legislation.

He said the security and intelligence organization act provided that the subject of a warrant be treated with humanity, and be protected from cruel and inhuman treatment. There was a strict time limit on the period of questioning, and they had a right to a lawyer. The law did not apply to those under 16 years of age, while those aged 16 to 18 years were subject to special provisions. The federal police could also apply to court for a control order, if it was thought that such an order would prevent a terrorist act, while observing the appropriate safeguards. He also discussed safeguards relating to Australia’s “stop, search and question” policy. A police officer would not use force more than reasonably necessary or longer than needed, he added.

Turning next to strategies undertaken to reduce what the Committee saw as the disproportionate number of indigenous Australians in conflict with the criminal justice system, Ms. NOLAN said the Government was actively exploring innovative strategies to divert indigenous Australians from the criminal justice system. It had funded a number of plans and programmes to address that matter, including the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Prevention, Diversion and Restorative Justice Programme, Legal Aid for Indigenous Australians, and the National Law and Indigenous Advisory body. As an example, she said the legal aid programme funded a network of providers throughout the country to deliver such services in rural and remote areas in all States and territories.

On making Australia’s native title system more equitable, she said the Government was trying to enhance that system by taking a more flexible approach. It was not “overhauling” that system. Among other things, the new approach treated native title as a means to address broader socio-economic issues. It also aimed to address indigenous peoples’ goals and aspirations. She said that the “Native Title Amendment Bill 2009” took a less adversarial and more negotiation-oriented approach aimed to introduce targeted reforms to that system. The contents of the bill had been transmitted to parties throughout the country and had been published on the Internet. Ministers were working proactively to resolve native title claims, she added.

Mr. SMITH, addressing questions on a 2007 report by the Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse in the Northern Territory, acknowledged that the survey had found such abuse to be widespread and seriously underreported in aboriginal communities. The report had highlighted strong connections between alcohol abuse, violence and the sexual abuse of children, and had stressed that, in some communities in the Northern Territory, such abuse and neglect was at “crisis levels” and required immediate attention.

Following the issuance of the report, the previous Australian Government had set up the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER), which had produced three emergency response bills that had been passed by Parliament in 2007. That legislation had aimed to protect children and make communities safe, in the first instance, and lay the foundation for a sustainable future for indigenous people in the Northern Territory. Immediate measures had included provision of additional policing, child health checks, repairs to infrastructure and alcohol and pornography restrictions. The current Australian Administration had placed stronger emphasis on engagement with aboriginal people affected by NTER. The Northern Territory Emergency Response Review Board had been set up to monitor implementation of the response measures.

The Board found, among other things, that some aboriginal communities had felt hurt and betrayed that they had not been consulted on the initial process, and that feeling had undercut some NTER initiatives. The Government had agreed that it would continue NTER within the framework of genuine consultation, respect for human rights obligations and in conformity with the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act. Indigenous people would be consulted in the process, he stressed.

On violence against men and women, he provided relevant statistics broken down by age groups, including information indicating women were more likely to be physically or sexually assaulted by men they knew. The Government had implemented a “zero-tolerance” policy on the issue and the relevant council was working on a national plan aimed at reducing such violence. Further, the Government had already invested heavily in analyzing domestic issues and attitudes on the issue. Other measures included the setting up of a specialized family violence programme, as well as a plan to address homelessness, especially since a major cause of homelessness among women was family violence. The Indigenous Family Violence Programme was among those targeting Australia’s native communities, he added.

Next, Ms. NOLAN said Australia provided support for victims of trafficking, and those who cooperated with authorities in investigations and prosecutions of their traffickers were provided with a range of social services. Such services included assistance with income, social support, counselling and training. Additional support was provided for those who no longer lived in Australia, but had returned to the country to give testimony in trafficking cases. Where victims did not choose to assist, the person was helped to return to their home country, unless they were eligible to remain in Australia.

Experts’ Comments and Questions

MICHAEL O’FLAHERTY, expert from Ireland, said he would have liked to have heard from a representative from States, since much of the implementation of the Covenant’s provisions fell to them. He commended the contribution of non-governmental organizations to the official response, and praised the Government for its quick submission of replies, but expressed concern over scanty responses on issue of high importance. For example, responses to article 27, on indigenous persons, received only four paragraphs. In addition, the report was dated 2008, but referenced much older material. Although Australia ought to be commended for pioneering the “expanded core document process” in human rights reporting, it had resulted in too little detail on issues of relevance to the Covenant. He suggested that it might be advisable for the Government to return to a more traditional approach.

He asked about the consultative process to better implement human rights in Australia, noting the process tended to frame questions rather broadly. How would the process ensure that all of Australia’s international obligations were taken into account, and that the process paid due respect to the indivisibility and universality of all human rights? To what extent was there an education and public information process occurring in parallel with the consultations, so that people could make informed responses? To what extent was the Government going beyond scientifically established methods to gather empirical information? Finally, what was the budget and timeline?

He then asked to what extent the Covenant and international human rights law were invoked in federal courts, remarking that non-governmental organizations were reporting a low level of citation at that level. Was the Government providing training for court professionals on matters of international law?

He said the panel did not adequately answer the Committee’s questions regarding measures and mechanisms to ensure compliance with the Committee’s views on communications. Some of the responses referred to certain websites, but he cautioned the delegation from assuming that Committee members had access to the Web or, if they did, that the websites were offered in all the Committee’s working languages.

He acknowledged the delegation’s assurances of prospective changes in the law to be more compliant to the Covenant, but nevertheless reminded them that it was the Committee’s duty to invite them to reconsider their reaction to its views. In terms of the so-called immigration cases, he said that the delegation’s opening statement today had given him the impression that detention would occur on the basis of some subjective determination. Was that true? What remedy would be given to the plaintiffs involved in those? The same was true in non-immigration cases, such as Young v. Australia and others. He also asked for information on two communications that were not dealt with in the written responses.

He said the response to question 6 was “somewhat anecdotal”. Why was there not more use of quantitative data in the response? For example, why was it difficult to gather statistics and figures on the outcome of an independent review of the Murray Court?

He then asked for more information on several new initiatives, including the new national indigenous law and justice advisory body, asking to whom it delivered its advice, and what was the timeline for its work? He posed similar questions regarding the Standing Committee of Attorneys General effort to draft an indigenous law and justice framework. What status would the framework ultimately have? If the Government was undertaking an overhaul, why was the word “overhaul” then not used? “Overhauling” something did not indicate failure.

On the new role of the Federal Court of Australia and amendments to native title, he asked whether the new bill of March 2009 included those changes. He noted also that the Government was interested in examining proposals to encourage “agreement-making”. How was the Government propelling work on such proposals?

On follow-up to issues relating to family violence and child abuse within indigenous communities, he noted that a child protection framework would be finalized in early March 2009. When would that be in place? How would the framework address issues of abuse within the indigenous community specifically? The Council of Governments had agreed to establish a clearinghouse on indigenous “outcomes” in April 2007. How did the clearinghouse target issues of violence and abuse specifically?

Regarding question 11, on extradition and mutual assistance around cases that might lead to the death penalty, he said the Second Optional Protocol prohibited extradition where persons were subject to the death penalty. He asked for information on safeguards that Australia was elaborating in that regard. He understood that assistance to a State in which the death penalty might be imposed could be waived in special circumstances, but that the term “special circumstances” had not been defined. When might they arise? The Act did not apply in the “Bali Nine” case. How did Australia ensure compliance with the Optional Protocol in that case?

HELEN KELLER, expert from Switzerland, asked for more clarification on Australia’s remaining reservations to the Covenant, saying the time might be ripe to reconsider reservations concerning article 10, paragraph 2(a) and (b), and 3. Like Mr. O’Flaherty, she also asked what Australia was doing to address extradition and mutual assistance in death penalty situations. She also asked what the Government proposed to do in light of a 2008 report on preventing crime and promoting the rights of indigenous youth with mental health issues. Similarly, a report of October 2006 precluded courts from considering background or customary laws for those convicted of federal crimes. What impact might that act have on indigenous children being overrepresented in the juvenile justice system? On violence against women, she noted a report of August 2008, and asked what the Government would do to implement its recommendations.

Next, KRISTER THELIN, expert from Sweden, praised Australia’s human rights record and urged the country to work in that spirit to remove the remaining flaws in its human rights system. He echoed Mr. O’Flaherty’s belief that the report was “scanty” and wondered if the delegation would reconsider its compilation procedures in the future. On the substance of the opening presentation, he was encouraged by upcoming improvements to the country’s anti-terrorism regime, including enhanced monitoring and oversight.

At the same time, he was concerned, based on the reports from other experts, if such changes might be “too little and too late.” Those reports pointed out certain weaknesses in the system that might erode some individual protections. He wondered if the Australian Government had made any moves to tighten its definition of terrorism, or its listing procedures? The Government was to be complimented for its efforts to fight the global scourge, but it must also make sure to keep measures in place to safeguard fundamental rights.

PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BHAGWATI, expert from India, asked for further clarification on the Australian Government’s programmes for assistance to persons who had been “trafficked” into the country. What were the statistics? What type of assistance had they received? If they had remained in the country, what were they doing now? He also asked under what circumstances a “criminal justice stay” was issued, and what were the results or conclusions of the ongoing review of existing visa provisions. Were discussions underway to revise that procedure?

ABDELFATTAH AMOR, expert from Tunisia, said that given the democratic nature of Australia and its commitment to democracy and human rights, why had it entered a reservation to Covenant article 20, on “prohibition of propaganda for war and advocacy for national, racial or religious hatred.” While a country must be attuned to freedom of expression, it must also guard against incitement to hatred, he said, adding that the Government’s reservation gave rise to serious concerns. He went on to express concern that the Government seemed to be routinely rejecting the Committee’s recommendations and general comments on specific issues.

Next, CHRISTINE CHANET, expert from France, agreed with others that it had been difficult to extract detailed information from the report as drafted. The Member States had established monitoring bodies for the core human rights treaties and it was up to those States to abide by the agreed rules. Australia’s report was a “very meagre” one, which referred to recommendations from an earlier report. Moreover, the documents had been provided only in English, creating “even more problems”. She was also concerned that the Committee’s findings were not being properly addressed, especially with regard to Covenant article 9, on the “right to liberty and security of persons”.

JOSÉ LUIS PEREZ SANCHEZ-CERRO, expert from Peru, asked, were there any cases of persons in Australia being held for upwards of two years without being charged with a crime? The country’s laws on detention dated back to 1958 and there didn’t seem to be any movement to change or update them. He was also among the experts concerned that Australia seemed reluctant to address recommendations and observations of the Committee. He noted that, dating back as far as 1993, the Australian Government had stated that the Committee’s observations were “non-binding”. However, all States parties to the Covenant were bound to take seriously the Committee’s decisions.

Taking the floor next, Sir NIGEL RODLEY, expert from the United Kingdom, welcomed that the “Pacific Solution” had been abolished and that the National Human Rights Consultation was under way. At the same time, he was concerned about some individual protections. For instance, if an individual seeking asylum was not a protected person under international law, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention, could he or she be treated “any way the State party wanted too”? He was also concerned by findings of the Red Cross that a high Australian military official had “ignored and contradicted” evidence of the “notorious” activities going on at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Moreover, that official had said that such practices were consistent with international law.

He also asked for clarification about Australia’s position on the principle of non-refoulement. He cited “troubling” cases in which a person sent back to China had been tortured and had subsequently committed suicide, and another, sent back to Gaza, who had been killed there for allegedly cooperating with Israel. It was unclear what protection and follow-up measures Australia had in place, and he asked for clarification to that end.

AHMED AMIN FATHALLAH, expert from Egypt, noted that each State legislature had the power to create their own laws. How would the Federal Government ensure that those laws were compatible with Australia’s obligations under the Covenant?

FABIAN OMAR SALVIOLI, expert from Argentina, observed that the Federal Government was primarily responsible for making sure the Covenant was being upheld, and asked what measures were being taken to implement its provisions within each State and territory. How did the Government deal with State legislation perceived as incompatible? Also, was there a process to debate the possible withdrawal of Australia’s reservations to the Covenant, and was the Government seeking to hold dialogues with law schools to raise awareness about the Covenant among professionals within the judiciary?

He congratulated the Government on its zero-tolerance policy on violence against women, but noted that non-governmental organizations were reporting that instances of domestic violence were on the rise. What steps were being taken to train the judiciary with respect to rules and laws for eliminating violence against women? The same went for discrimination against indigenous persons. He also asked whether the Government had any policies for dealing with extradition involving possible cases of torture, such as in the case of women facing the possibility of female genital mutilation.

Delegation’s Response

Invited to respond to some of these questions in the limited time available, Mr. CAMPBELL chose to comment on mutual assistance and police assistance in cases involving the death penalty. He explained that mutual assistance was used to provide Government-to-Government assistance in criminal investigations and prosecutions to seek admissible forms of evidence. Police assistance referred to direct cooperation between police of different countries and tended to occur before entering into the mutual assistance process. When a person was charged or convicted of an offence that [attracted] the death penalty, the Attorney-General was required to refuse the request for assistance unless there was reasonable cause to do otherwise. An explanatory document accompanying the relevant act states that assistance would not be granted unless the other country agreed not to carry out the death sentence. However, the assurance was not necessary in cases where the evidence was exculpatory. Also, the Attorney-General had the discretion to refuse to provide assistance. It was not possible to provide a list of circumstances under which the Australian Government would consider special assistance, because it was decided upon on a case-by-case basis.

Similarly, he said police-to-police assistance could not be provided in cases [attracting] the death penalty unless the Home Affairs Minister approved it. The Attorney-General had already put forward a request to the Attorney-General’s Department and Australian federal police to review the procedure. The review was ongoing. On the Bali Nine, Mr. Campbell said the information from the Australian federal police provided to the Indonesian police had been reviewed by the federal court in January 2006. The court found that there had been a “rational purpose” for making the request and that the federal police had acted lawfully in communicating with their Indonesian counterparts. Nevertheless, the Australian Government would support vigorously any clemency pleas, should any Australian citizens pursue it. It was up to those convicted to determine the next steps with their legal teams.

Mr. ILLINGWORTH responded to queries regarding a statement by the Minister of Immigration on the mandatory detention within Australia’s immigration policies, a copy of which would be provided to the Committee tomorrow. The Government had affirmed that mandatory detention was part and parcel of border control for specific groups of people: unauthorized arrivals; unlawful non-citizens posing danger to the community; and unlawful non-citizens who refused to comply with visa conditions. However, indefinite or arbitrary detention was not acceptable. Length of detention and conditions of condition were subject to regular review. There were mechanisms to ensure that unauthorized arrivals were removed from detention at the earliest opportunity. Those decisions were made on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Illingworth responded to questions raised by Sir Nigel regarding the al-Masri and Zhang cases, saying it was not Australia’s policy to remove persons in breach of international obligations. In relation to Mr. al-Masri, he told the Committee that material provided by various sources had revealed that his death occurred six years after his departure from Australia and, thus, the factors surrounding his death were not related to issues he faced while residing in Australia. In relation to the second case, he said the Government was similarly satisfied that the claimant was assessed appropriately, and that his departure from Australia was not in breach of the country’s international obligations.

St. Kitts-Nevis To Host Major United Nations Conference

Caribbean Venue of Decolonisation Talks

By Carlos Lopez de Otero
Reprinted from Overseas Territories Report

The island Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis will be the focus of international attention as the venue for the 2009 annual United Nations Caribbean Regional Seminar on the political, economic and constitutional developments in the non self-governing territories worldwide. The decision was taken last February at the organisational session of the Special Committee on Decolonisation which formally accepted the offer of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member State to host the session scheduled for this May.

The event will bring together ambassadors from United Nations member states, ministerial level representation from dependent territories in the Caribbean and Pacific, several decolonisation experts and non-governmental organisation representatives from the region to address the present state of the decolonisation process.

The 2009 seminar will be the final session held in the Caribbean pursuant to the international Plan of Action of the United Nations Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism which ends in 2010. As such, the recommendations of the Caribbean Seminar will be fundamental to the development of future international actions to be taken to further the self-determination process in the remaining dependent territories, most of which are small island territories in the Caribbean and Pacific regions.

The Caribbean territories are Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla administered by the British; and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands administered by the United States. The associated countries of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, and the integrated departments of Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana, are not within the political scope of the United Nations decolonisation efforts.

The importance of regional involvement in the self-determination process for the small island territories was articulated in a 2008 article written for Overseas Territories Journal by International Advisor on Governance Dr.Carlyle Corbin who noted that “the Caribbean territories are integral components of the social and economic fabric of the region” with three of the British-administered territories enjoying “membership or associate membership in the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), one as a full member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), with five other dependencies enjoying associate membership in CARICOM.”

Corbin, who is the former US Virgin Islands Minister of State for External Affairs, also pointed out that many of the British-administered territories were also borrowing members of the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), and most of them along with the US - administered territories, were associate members of the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee (CDCC), a subsidiary body of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Corbin, who was an advisor to several previous Caribbean Chairs of the Decolonisation Committee, observed that “since the beginning of the 1990s, Caribbean delegations sought a more active role in the work of the Special Committee (on Decolonisation) in recognition that developments in the Caribbean territories could have certain impacts on the wider region, given the level of integration of these territories in the economic and social life of the Caribbean.”

To this end, he recalled that “the Caribbean has played an historic role in the process of United Nations review through the hosting of these regional seminars in past years to examine the evolving economic, social and political situation in the territories, beginning in Barbados (1990), Grenada (1992), Trinidad and Tobago (1995), Antigua and Barbuda (1997), St. Lucia (1999), Cuba (2001), Anguilla (2003) St. Vincent and the Grenadines (2005) and Grenada (2007)."

Corbin went further to note that “in recent years, the Eastern Caribbean, in particular, has expanded its role in the U.N. review of the neighboring territories, with all six OECS States - Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, Dominica and Grenada serving as members of the strategic UN Special Committee on Decolonisation.”

He also emphasized the significance of the dependent territories of Anguilla and Montserrat using the Eastern Caribbean dollar as their official currency along with the neighboring OECS independent countries.

All indications are that the role of the Caribbean region is critical in promoting the self-determination process leading to the decolonisation of the remaining small island territories. In this regard, Caribbean states have been urged to place the issue of contemporary self-determination on the permanent CARICOM agenda given that further delay in the decolonisation process of the remaining dependent territories could affect the integration movement.

The convening of the St. Kitts-Nevis seminar in May could mark a defining moment in furthering the development process for the dependent territories of the Caribbean region, with the potential to make a significant contribution to the overall Caribbean integration movement.

Developments in Guadeloupe

Guadeloupe: General strike scores victory, spreads to other colonies

Richard Fidler
13 March 2009

posted on March 8 at http://lifeonleft.blogspot.com.

The general strike in the French Caribbean colony of Guadeloupe, which began on January 20, ended March 4, when an accord was signed between the Collective Against Super-Exploitation (LKP) strike collective and the local governments, the employers’ federation and the French government. The agreement granted the strikers their top 20 immediate demands and provided for continued negotiations on the remaining 126 mid-term and long-term demands. The LKP is a coalition of 49 unions and grassroots organisations.

The LKP strike collective voted to end the strike, its member unions and community groups declaring this a “first victory” after 44 days of general strike, repeated mass demonstrations, and negotiations. Some strikes are continuing, however, where the bosses’ associations have not signed the agreement on wages. For example, at the Gardel sugar refinery and in the supermarkets belonging to various beke families (the white elite that controls most industry and agriculture).

And on March 7, 30,000 people marched through the streets of the capital, Pointe-a-Pitre, to celebrate the initial victory. The accord on wages provides for a €200 monthly increase for workers with a gross income of between €132 and €1849 per month (i.e. the minimum wage or up to 40% higher than the minimum); a 6% increase for those between €1849 and €2113; and a 3% increase for those with higher incomes.

This agreement is called the “Jacques Bino Accord” in memory of the union activist who was killed during the strike. The cost of these wage increases is allocated between the employers and the French and local governments, with small business employers responsible for only a quarter of the increase.

Other concessions accepted after lengthy and difficult negotiations, included:

• an average 6% reduction in the price of water;

• hiring of 22 Guadeloupian teachers on the waiting list;

• €40,000 in compensation for truckers and bus operators left out when urban and inter-city transportation was reorganised;

• various measures to aid farmers and fishers, including the setting aside of 64,000 hectares of farmland for future use, and a grant of €350,000 for the modernisation and renewal of fishing gear for full-time fishers;

• an emergency plan for young people (jobs and training for 8000 youth aged 16-25);

• lower bank service rates on certain products for individuals and small businesses; lower interest rates on loans are still being negotiated;

• a housing rent freeze and ban on evictions;

• some improvements in union rights, appointment of mediators to resolve outstanding conflicts in some major industries; and

• provisions for cultural development.

A parity commission with equal representation of unions and employers will oversee implementation of the agreements.

Leading the militant general strike, which shut down most businesses, schools, government offices and services, were the General Union of Workers of Guadeloupe (UGTG) and the various affiliates of the major French union federations. The mass demonstrations, often mobilising tens of thousands, were led by large disciplined contingents of marshals dressed in the LKP T-shirts.

The strike collective held frequent mass meetings to report on developments. A popular website included constant update reports, photos and video presentations of speeches at the major rallies and demonstrations. Reporting on the draft accord at a mass meeting on March 4, union leader Rosan Mounien said: “From now on, things will no longer be done as before! That’s over!

“We have come to realise that when we are together, we are stronger! So there is only one thing to do: stay together!”

The bosses and the government, he said, had overlooked the fact that “when a people arises, when it develops awareness, when it is convinced of the rightness of its actions … there is nothing that can stop it. The people sweep aside all obstacles placed in their path, like a whirlwind cleaning out all the dirt in a country.”

Asked by a French newspaper why the bosses had proved so resistant to the workers’ demands, LKP leader Elie Domota said: “To them, it is out of the question that the negroes would rebel and demand increases in their wages.”

The preamble to the Jacques Bino Accord pointed out the struggle’s underlying cause, stating that “the present economic and social situation existing in Guadeloupe results from the perpetuation of the model of the plantation economy”.

This economy “is based on monopoly privileges and abuses of dominant positions that generate injustices”, which affect “the workers and the endogenous economic actors” and block “endogenous economic and social development”.

The accord calls for an end to these obstacles “by establishing a new economic order enhancing the status of everyone and promoting new social relationships”. Domota told French daily L’Humanite that although the strike movement had not advanced demands for institutional changes in Guadeloupe’s colonial status as an “overseas department” of France, “the people of Guadeloupe are demanding more respect, more dignity, work, an end to racial discrimination, increased wages and training to ensure the future of our youth”.

Guadeloupe is one of four French overseas departments or territories now convulsed by major social conflicts. “These societies”, said Domota, “are built on a colonial model. They are countries that want, in the future, to be recognised in full dignity, in full respect.”

The UGTG calls for the independence of Guadeloupe. On March 8, the day after the 30,000-strong victory march, the union published a resolution to this effect adopted at its 12th Congress in April 2008. (See translation in related articles.)

In neighbouring Martinique, a general strike that began on February 5 around similar demands has also mobilised the population of some 400,000 with demonstrations of up to 25,000 in the capital, Fort-de-France.

It has already produced a provisional accord that contains many of the same provisions as the one in Guadeloupe — and it includes a 20% reduction in the price of some basic consumer products. But the strike movement continues.

A similar mass movement appears to be developing in another French colony, La Reunion, an island in the Indian Ocean with a population of about 800,000. A coalition of 25 trade unions, parties and other mass organisations has mobilised up to 30,000 in the streets in support of a platform of 62 demands, many of them similar to those in the Caribbean colonies.

The Unfinished Decolonisation Agenda for 2009

An Editoral

The international community has reached the penultimate year of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. Yet, the process of decolonisation in the remaining territories remains un-filled. The United Nations must continue to play its statutory role in making recommendations to the General Assembly for the full implementation of the decolonisation mandate contained in Article 73(b) of the Charter.

This article requires that countries which administer territories must promote full self-government. To this end, innovative means must be devised to expand the information available to the territories on the legitimate political status options available to them. The information deficit in the territories and at the United Nations continues as a significant impediment to the realisation of the right to self-determination by the peoples of these territories.

It is favourably acknowledged that internal reforms have been enacted in several territories, particular in some of the United Kingdom – administered dependencies in the Caribbean. It should be emphasized, however, that the delegation of some authorities resulting from the reform process was not intended to change the dependency political status. The U.N. must, therefore, focus attention on the intricacies of such constitutional adjustments which must be must be reviewed in detail, lest they be successfully projected as some sort of legitimate power sharing arrangement. Accordingly, the information and analysis available to the U.N. on these issues must be significantly enhanced in order that a more comprehensive picture of the contemporary dependency dynamic is clearly understood.

U.N. Member states have spoken clearly on these issues over the years. The regional statements of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to the U.N. Fourth Committee for at least a decade have continued to emphasize the need for innovative measures to increase the chances of success in implementing the decolonisation mandate. In this regard, the General Assembly in 2006 endorsed by resolution the Programme of Implementation (POI) first proposed by a former Caribbean chair of the Special Committee on Decolonisation. This Programme identified the role of the wider United Nations system and other relevant actors in implementing the mandate of the first and second international decades for the eradication of colonialism.

Had this Programme been operationalised as intended by the General Assembly, a number of mandated activities would have been completed, and the awareness of member states of the situation on the ground in the territories significantly enhanced. These activities include the analytical studies and analyses on the evolution of self-government in each territory, the case-by-case work plan, the reports on implementation of decolonisation resolutions, and the introduction of Special Mechanisms.

The U.N. must therefore endeavor to facilitate the implementation of these innovative actions called for by the General Assembly. Otherwise, progress will remain limited, with the U.N. technically satisfying its responsibility to review the situation in the territories, while not bringing about decolonisation, in earnest. In fact, since the independence of Namibia at the beginning of the 1990s, only one territory – Timor Leste – has gained the full measure of self-government – through independence. Most of the other territories continue to suffer from a lack of information as to whether the other legitimate political status options of political Integration and Free Association are even available to them, despite the consensus resolutions of the General Assembly which annually confirm their relevance to all of the territories.

The 2009 Organisational Session of the Special Committee on Decolonisation convened on 27th February under the chairmanship of Indonesia. One year before, several Caribbean delegations proposed the establishment of an open-ended Working Group to examine the situation in the small island territories, in particular, where there are no issues of sovereignty dispute which have overshadowed the U.N. deliberations. The predictable “budgetary implications” argument short-circuited this innovative proposal, however. This is a tactic often employed by the U.N. bureaucracy to stymie innovations proposed by member states, where no new financial resources are required, or the re-ordering of existing resources. The majority block of developing countries, the Group of 77 and China, reminded the U.N. system in 2008 that it is only the member states through the Fifth Committee can determine “budgetary implications.”

Thus, the U.N. General Assembly has repeatedly adopted innovative recommendations which would facilitate the decolonisation process in the territories, and designed to increase the understanding of member states of the situation in the territories. It is regrettable that these innovations appear to have no chance of being carried out.

2010 will be the final year of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. It is clearly obvious that a third decade is in order, but it would only be successful if the modus operandi is totally revamped.


United Nations Press Release
Special Committee on Decolonization
1st Meeting (PM)

SECRETARY-GENERAL, CITING ‘UNFINISHED BUSINESS’, CALLS FOR RENEWED COMMITMENT TO ERADICATE COLONIALISM, AS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION OPENS SESSION

The Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism was set to end in 2010, but the decolonization process was “unfinished” and required closer cooperation between the administering Powers and the 16 remaining Non-Self Governing Territories to bring about a successful conclusion, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today in a message to the Special Committee on Decolonization.

Under the United Nations Charter, administering Powers had a special obligation to bring territories under their administration to an appropriate level of self-government.

“I encourage you to follow the example of New Zealand and Tokelau, whose partnership had shown what close cooperation could achieve,” Mr. Ban said in a message delivered by Shaaban M. Shabban, Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly Affairs and Conference Management, to the opening of the 2009 session of the body formally known as the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Granting of the Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.

Administering Powers had a special obligation under the United Nations Charter to bring territories under their administration to an appropriate level of self-government and, as such, the Secretary-General called for a renewed commitment to “bring our collective efforts to a successful conclusion”. He thanked the Special Committee for its work and encouraged its members to continue their “pragmatic and realistic approach, taking into account the specific circumstances of each territory”.

In his opening remarks, Marty M. Natalegawa ( Indonesia), who was re-elected Chairman, said: “If the Special Committee is to maintain its relevance, not least for the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, it is incumbent upon all of us to take a good hard look at the way in which we go about our annual business”. He urged the body to revive the spirit of decolonization, retool its methods of work and hone its capacity to engage with concerned parties in an innovative manner.

The Committee should not overlook the “many practical, tangible, smaller steps” it could pursue to rejuvenate its work, he said, adding that “every single effort counts and will contribute as a stepping stone”. As the Committee prepared to formulate draft resolutions on decolonization later this year, it was important to encourage the active participation of all stakeholders, including administering Powers.

Equally important was the need to obtain feedback on the 16 working papers on the Non-Self-Governing Territories to ascertain their accuracy, relevance and comprehensiveness. “Much has been said about the need to think outside the box. It is about time to put this into practice,” he said, pointing to the Committee’s need to adapt to prevailing circumstances, which were often testing.

He explained that one of the Special Committee’s immediate priorities was the holding of a seminar on decolonization, likely to be convened in the middle of May. The Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis had offered to host the Caribbean regional seminar, which he hoped would see the active participation of Committee members, administering Powers and territorial Governments.

Later in the meeting, he said the Special Committee would need to hold a formal meeting, tentatively scheduled for 18 March, to officially accept the timely offer of Saint Kitts and Nevis and to endorse the seminar’s agenda, rules of procedure, composition of the Special Committee’s official delegation, and lists of experts, non-governmental organizations and other participants.

Mr. Natalegawa congratulated all other Bureau members who assumed their duties today and thanked the delegation of Congo for having served as Vice-Chair from 2004 to 2008He also welcomed the delegation of Ecuador as the newest member of the Special Committee.

Pledging to work constructively with the Chair and Bureau to advance the Committee’s work, the representatives of Sierra Leone, Congo, Cuba, Papua New Guinea, Syria and Ecuador each expressed their ongoing commitment to the objective of ending colonialism.

“Out of the work of this Committee were born many countries who are active Members of the United Nations,” the representative of Papua New Guinea said, urging the Committee not to forget the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories that had not yet been decolonized.

The United Nations must decide what was needed to live up to the General Assembly’s resolution of 1960, 1514 (XV) -- the Declaration on Decolonization -- especially with the Committee’s fiftieth anniversary approaching in 2010. He paid tribute to the administering Powers that had rendered assistance to the Committee over the years, highlighting the Government of New Zealand, in particular, for its cooperation and support on the status of Tokelau.

Ecuador’s representative agreed with others that time was pressing, and welcomed the Chair’s invitation for members to exchange opinions among themselves and to forge a closer relationship with administering Powers.

Also speaking today was the representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis, who thanked others for supporting his country’s offer to host the decolonization seminar.

In other matters, the Special Committee approved its organization of work for the year (documents A/AC.109/2009/L.1 and 2). As for the rest of the Special Committee’s Bureau, Adelardo Moreno Fernandez ( Cuba) and Rupert Davies ( Sierra Leone) were elected as Vice-Chairmen, and Bashar Ja’afari ( Syria) was re-elected as Rapporteur.