by Benito Wheatley
Over the last two election cycles, rule of the Government of the Virgin Islands has alternated between the Virgin Islands Party (VIP) and the National Democratic Party (NDP). The shifting of power between the two reflects the public’s general dissatisfaction with the overall governance of the territory under both VIP and NDP governments. The NDP’s election defeat in 2007 and the VIP’s election defeat in 2003 attest to this fact. The consecutive defeats of both ruling parties suggests that the source of public dissatisfaction is not explicitly with the parties themselves, but rather their governing style, and more broadly, the style of governance practiced in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). In simpler terms, the public’s underlying concern is the BVI’s political culture and its negative impact upon the society as a whole.
The overall performance of both the NDP and VIP governments did not live up to the expectations of the electorate in terms of the territory’s progress and development. While both governments can lay claim to many achievements, several aspects of the society are today worse off than at any other time in history and continue to deteriorate. Elements of the BVI’s political culture have helped to undermine government’s effectiveness in managing the territory’s affairs. More specifically, certain political practices engaged in by both the NDP and VIP governments were not in keeping with the good governance of the territory.
Following election victories in 2003 and 2007, both parties engaged in political patronage by removing previously appointed officials from their posts and replacing them with their own political operatives or party supporters. This practice was not necessarily merit-based or focused on appointing the most qualified person for the job. Political patronage also figured prominently in the economic sector with the awarding of government contracts to each of the parties’ preferred companies or highly favored businessmen. Coupled with the issue of political patronage was the problem of political victimization, which was also witnessed under NDP and VIP governments. In some instances, certain elected officials and government appointees threatened and punished civil servants and other residents who expressed disagreement with the government or spoke out on certain issues. Political victimization muzzled a certain segment of the population and in effect restricted elements of free speech in the BVI.
Perhaps the political practice most destructive to the governing of the territory was the NDP and VIP’s “headstrong” approach to governance that is a staple of BVI politics. The NDP and VIP pursued various agendas contrary to public opinion and the advice of technical experts. Certain policies were formulated and projects implemented under the pretext that a minister or the party knew what was best for the territory and that there was no need for consultation with the public on certain matters. This headstrong approach was a critical factor in the NDP’s defeat in 2007, where popular support for the party was lost after the NDP government made the decision to proceed with a controversial five-star hotel project on Beef Island that was vehemently opposed by environmental and community groups. In recent months the VIP government took a similar course of action by installing traffic lights at the roundabout against the wishes of the public and contrary to the technical advice of consultants. The “rescue the people from themselves” mentality damaged the credibility of both parties.
Another feature of BVI politics that helped to undermine the good governance of the territory was the lack of sufficient transparency in the NDP and VIP’s handling of government affairs. Under both governments, various contracts were negotiated under a veil of secrecy. The governments failed to adequately consult stakeholders or to disclose the governments’ intentions to the public. Their argument for less transparency and consultation followed that if the government were to consult the public on every issue nothing would get done. Politicians must accept that democracy is a consultative process which requires transparency and input from the people affected by decisions made by their government, even if it slows the pace at which government works.
Finally, underlying the political behavior of the NDP and VIP governments was the electoral need to satisfy local constituencies. Both governments launched projects directed at certain districts that were not necessarily implemented for the overall benefit of the territory. Rather, in too many instances, district projects focused solely on what was good for a particular constituency as opposed to the population at large. An example of this is the gym in BellVue. Prior to its construction, the BVI was in desperate need of an indoor recreational facility. However, BellVue was not an ideal location and travel to the area was inconvenient for most residents of other communities. Nonetheless, district politics prevailed and the gym was built under a VIP government. A few years later it became clear that the facility’s location did not serve the greater needs of the general public and a new recreational facility was constructed in Road Town (which presently serves a greater proportion of the territory’s population). Presumably, local constituencies will continue to drive BVI politics as long as electoral districts hold the key to re-election.
If the negative political practices engaged in by both NDP and VIP governments during their terms are not curbed, the progress and development of the territory will continue to be stymied. Certain measures are required to diminish the BVI’s poor political practices.
First, it must be recognized that the structure of the BVI’s political system (Westminster model) enabled the previous two governments to engage in political abuses by empowering the ruling parties to dominate the legislature with few checks on their power over decision making. Structural changes are needed to check the power of the government in the legislature, as well as the power of elected officials to victimize civil servants. Within the House of Assembly, on critical pieces of legislation, a two-thirds majority should be required for passage of a bill. For example, this approach can be applied to financial matters such as government borrowing that exceeds a certain monetary threshold (e.g., $30 million) within a fiscal year. Such a measure could help to encourage greater debate in the House of Assembly and compel the government to exercise fiscal restraint and prudence in the overall management of the territory’s affairs.
With respect to political victimization, the recent establishment of the Office of the Complaints Commissioner (i.e., Ombudsman) was a good start to addressing this problem. However, major questions remain about the powers, authority, and independence of the Ombudsman relative to other branches of government. Does the Ombudsman have the power to challenge an elected official or to protect a civil servant in cases involving abuse of power by their superiors? The interplay of the Ombudsman and other branches of government will reveal the future effectiveness of the office in curbing political victimization at the highest levels.
As it concerns government transparency, stronger disclosure requirements are needed in the procurement process. Prior to the approval of contracts entered into by government, a review period (e.g., two weeks) should be allowed during which the public can review the details of a contract if it exceeds a certain monetary threshold (e.g., $100,000). This would allow interested parties to assess the contract and engage their elected official if there are any concerns. Transparency of this kind would make the government more open and responsive to its citizens and help to diminish political patronage in the awarding of contracts.
Lastly, minimizing political patronage in the making of political appointments can be achieved by holding public confirmation hearings where candidates are interviewed before an independent body. This process would give members of the public an opportunity to observe candidates and asses their level of competency for the position. This measure would open up the process to public scrutiny and allow citizens to determine whether the government has selected the most qualified candidate for the job.
In conclusion, while VIP and NDP governments genuinely attempted to improve the condition of the territory, the poor political practices in which they engaged hampered their efforts to succeed in rapidly modernizing the BVI and solving some of its most pressing social, environmental, economic, and infrastructural problems. Until these political practices are addressed, the public will remain dissatisfied with the performance of government, and the political pendulum will continue to swing back and forth between the NDP, VIP, or any other political party that fails to abandon the poor political practices that are currently a feature of BVI politics.
Benito Wheatley is a Researcher for the publication International Affairs Forum in Arlington, Virginia and is also an Analyst in the International Affairs and Services Department at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in Washington, DC. Please direct comments or questions to mailto:bwheatley@ai-forum.org
20 January 2010
17 January 2010
Who Constitutes “The People” of a Non Self-Governing Territory?
The subject of just who constitutes “the people” in the remaining non self-governing territories and in other non-independent countries continues to be central to confirming the right to self-determination, especially in view of increasing demographic diversity in many of these societies. The issue has been addressed to varying degrees in a number of the territories concerned, including the US-administered territories in the Pacific. Guam, for example, has already legislated a future self-determination referendum for the indigenous native Chamoru people, whilst the Northern Mariana Islands Commonwealth Covenant contains provisions protecting land ownership for the indigenous native inhabitants. The traditional rights system in American Samoa affirming similar powers is further indication.
In the Caribbean, the draft constitution adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands last year contains provisions which would recognise the native population which is comprised of mainly African descendents, and which was formally recognised by the US in the Treaty of Cession when the islands were sold in 1917 from one colonial power (Denmark) to the next (US). The constitutions of most of the British-administered territories in the Caribbean are perhaps the clearest in identifying “the people.” An historical examination of political and cultural identity in Caribbean non self-governing territories was published in a scholarly article in the 2009 edition of Caribbean Perspectives, a Journal of the Eastern Caribbean Centre of the University of the Virgin Islands, and should be featured in OTR shortly.
This question of who constitutes the people in non self-governing territories also has been fundamental in the self-determination process underway in French-administered Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia), a Melanisian non-independent country in the Pacific region. Analyst Sarimin J. Boengkih of Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia) provides an historical analysis of these often complex issues in that territory. The article, which follows, was originally written in follow-up to the conclusion of an Address delivered at the 2009 official commemoration of the 161st Anniversary of Emancipation Day in the former Danish West Indies by Governance Expert Dr. Carlyle Corbin.
____________________________________________________________________________
Who Constitutes “The People?" - The Case of Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia)
By Sarimin J. Boengkih
I wish to share some thoughts on the matter of who constitutes “the people”. Of course and from a general point of view, it seems that one may refer to the United Nations document, “The Right to Self-Determination, Implementation of United Nations Resolutions” (U.N. Document E/CN.4/Sub.2/405/Rev.1,), a study by Hector Gros Espiell, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities appointed in 1974, especially paragraphs 42-45 C (Meaning of the expression “right of peoples under colonial and alien domination to self-determination”, pages 5 and 6).
If during the decolonisation era of the 1960s and 1970s, in every one’s mind there was no question about who constitutes the people as the decolonisation process was taking place in Africa and in the Pacific where the colonies were populated with the indigenous peoples controlled by a minority of expatriates and settlers.
Each Territory of the United Nations list has a different recent history, therefore my comment will focus on the situation in New Caledonia, under French rules, in effect one of Europe’s last remaining colonies in the Pacific region. During the last four decades, the Territory’s population has increased with a big help from migrants that today claim to also constitute the “people” and should be granted the right to participate in the future referendum on self-determination, as any colonised people. In another way, the migrants claim to be granted a new status. They moved from their ancestors‘ land in France to a Territory of the UN list of Non Self-Governing Territories, therefore they became colonised people. This cannot be accepted.
Since France took over the main island in 1853, the Kanak people, the indigenous people of New Caledonia, never stopped the struggle against colonisation and the occupation of its country by a foreign force. The path to colonial settlement has been paved with uprisings, bloody battles, fraternal killings, forced relocation of people on “native reserves”, and segregation laws until 1946 when French citizenship was granted to all Kanaks.
But less than thirty years later, the call for Kanak independence was revived, and the French government reacted with new policies to open the territory to “a massive immigration of French citizens from metropolitan France and French Territories to counter the threat to the French presence in New Caledonia constituted by the nationalistic claim of the indigenous population which could eventually be supported by possible allies from ethnic communities of the Pacific” (French Prime minister Pierre Mesmer in a letter to his Minister for Overseas Departments and territories in July 1972). In 1974, the outcomes of such immigration policies are clear : from representing 51.9% of the total population in 1951, the Kanak dropped down to 40.8% of the total population (1974 census). European settlers and new migrants make 40%, while minorities made of former indentured workers originated from former European colonies (Ducth Indies, Indochina, India) or Japan and from other French Territories make up 20%.
In 1983, talks between the French government, the pro-Kanak independence parties and the settlers ended with the official recognition by the French government of the innate and active rights of the Kanak people to independence and the rights of “the victims of History” – those non-indigenous New Caledonians who were forced by one mean or another to settle in the Territory to take part in the self-determination election.
On December 2, 1986, New Caledonia was (re-)enlisted on the United Nations decolonisation list as a Non Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter (Resolution 41/41/A). In that Resolution the General Assembly does not precisely say who constitutes “the people.” But the administering power is reminded (of) Resolution 35/118 that calls on “States parties to take the necessary measures to discourage or prevent the systematic influx of outside immigrants and settlers into Territories under colonial domination, which disrupts the demographic compositions of those Territories and may constitute a major obstacle to the genuine exercise of the right to self-determination and independence by the people of those Territories.”
In 1998, France, the pro-independence parties and the settlers’ party signed the Noumea Accord initiating a decolonisation process that should lead to a referendum on self-determination sometime between 2014 and 2019. The Noumea Accord starts with a Preamble in which the indigenous Kanak people is recognised as a people distinct from the French people. Article 4 of the Preamble says “ Decolonisation is the way to rebuild a lasting social bond between the communities living in New Caledonia today, by enabling the Kanak people to establish new relations with France, reflecting the realities of our time.” But the immigration from metropolitan France and from French Overseas Territories and Departments never stopped.
In 2000, the settlers’ party started a political controversy pretending that the Noumea Accord defined the electorate body of voters to participate in the provincial elections, and therefore in the self-determination referendum, to include the migrants that settled in the Territory after 1998. On the contrary, the pro-independence parties and the French government said the accord limited the voters to those residing in New Caledonia ten years prior to 1998. In 2007, the French Parliament passed a law confirming the limitation of the electoral body.
The settlers’ party Rassemblement-UMP keeps claiming that 18,000 French citizens that settled in the Territory since should be granted the right to participate in the referendum on self-determination. Despite the French Parliament’s 2007 decision, the two elected members to the French National Assembly representing New Caledonia are still campaigning, pretending that the basic voting rights of French citizens are being violated.
When considering that these 18,000 French citizens are entrepreneurs or highly qualified employees of the private sector, one can easily understand how much they can already weigh as obstacles to a genuine exercise of the right to self-determination and independence by the people of the Territory. Therefore they cannot be considered as part of the people.
It is obvious that all people living in the Territory at the time of the self-determination referendum are not “concerned” by the future of the Territory in which they have neither family interests nor determined economic interests that tie them to the past and heighten their awareness in the future of the Territory.
In the Caribbean, the draft constitution adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the US Virgin Islands last year contains provisions which would recognise the native population which is comprised of mainly African descendents, and which was formally recognised by the US in the Treaty of Cession when the islands were sold in 1917 from one colonial power (Denmark) to the next (US). The constitutions of most of the British-administered territories in the Caribbean are perhaps the clearest in identifying “the people.” An historical examination of political and cultural identity in Caribbean non self-governing territories was published in a scholarly article in the 2009 edition of Caribbean Perspectives, a Journal of the Eastern Caribbean Centre of the University of the Virgin Islands, and should be featured in OTR shortly.
This question of who constitutes the people in non self-governing territories also has been fundamental in the self-determination process underway in French-administered Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia), a Melanisian non-independent country in the Pacific region. Analyst Sarimin J. Boengkih of Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia) provides an historical analysis of these often complex issues in that territory. The article, which follows, was originally written in follow-up to the conclusion of an Address delivered at the 2009 official commemoration of the 161st Anniversary of Emancipation Day in the former Danish West Indies by Governance Expert Dr. Carlyle Corbin.
____________________________________________________________________________
Who Constitutes “The People?" - The Case of Nouvelle-Calédonie (New Caledonia)
By Sarimin J. Boengkih
I wish to share some thoughts on the matter of who constitutes “the people”. Of course and from a general point of view, it seems that one may refer to the United Nations document, “The Right to Self-Determination, Implementation of United Nations Resolutions” (U.N. Document E/CN.4/Sub.2/405/Rev.1,), a study by Hector Gros Espiell, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities appointed in 1974, especially paragraphs 42-45 C (Meaning of the expression “right of peoples under colonial and alien domination to self-determination”, pages 5 and 6).
If during the decolonisation era of the 1960s and 1970s, in every one’s mind there was no question about who constitutes the people as the decolonisation process was taking place in Africa and in the Pacific where the colonies were populated with the indigenous peoples controlled by a minority of expatriates and settlers.
Each Territory of the United Nations list has a different recent history, therefore my comment will focus on the situation in New Caledonia, under French rules, in effect one of Europe’s last remaining colonies in the Pacific region. During the last four decades, the Territory’s population has increased with a big help from migrants that today claim to also constitute the “people” and should be granted the right to participate in the future referendum on self-determination, as any colonised people. In another way, the migrants claim to be granted a new status. They moved from their ancestors‘ land in France to a Territory of the UN list of Non Self-Governing Territories, therefore they became colonised people. This cannot be accepted.
Since France took over the main island in 1853, the Kanak people, the indigenous people of New Caledonia, never stopped the struggle against colonisation and the occupation of its country by a foreign force. The path to colonial settlement has been paved with uprisings, bloody battles, fraternal killings, forced relocation of people on “native reserves”, and segregation laws until 1946 when French citizenship was granted to all Kanaks.
But less than thirty years later, the call for Kanak independence was revived, and the French government reacted with new policies to open the territory to “a massive immigration of French citizens from metropolitan France and French Territories to counter the threat to the French presence in New Caledonia constituted by the nationalistic claim of the indigenous population which could eventually be supported by possible allies from ethnic communities of the Pacific” (French Prime minister Pierre Mesmer in a letter to his Minister for Overseas Departments and territories in July 1972). In 1974, the outcomes of such immigration policies are clear : from representing 51.9% of the total population in 1951, the Kanak dropped down to 40.8% of the total population (1974 census). European settlers and new migrants make 40%, while minorities made of former indentured workers originated from former European colonies (Ducth Indies, Indochina, India) or Japan and from other French Territories make up 20%.
In 1983, talks between the French government, the pro-Kanak independence parties and the settlers ended with the official recognition by the French government of the innate and active rights of the Kanak people to independence and the rights of “the victims of History” – those non-indigenous New Caledonians who were forced by one mean or another to settle in the Territory to take part in the self-determination election.
On December 2, 1986, New Caledonia was (re-)enlisted on the United Nations decolonisation list as a Non Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter (Resolution 41/41/A). In that Resolution the General Assembly does not precisely say who constitutes “the people.” But the administering power is reminded (of) Resolution 35/118 that calls on “States parties to take the necessary measures to discourage or prevent the systematic influx of outside immigrants and settlers into Territories under colonial domination, which disrupts the demographic compositions of those Territories and may constitute a major obstacle to the genuine exercise of the right to self-determination and independence by the people of those Territories.”
In 1998, France, the pro-independence parties and the settlers’ party signed the Noumea Accord initiating a decolonisation process that should lead to a referendum on self-determination sometime between 2014 and 2019. The Noumea Accord starts with a Preamble in which the indigenous Kanak people is recognised as a people distinct from the French people. Article 4 of the Preamble says “ Decolonisation is the way to rebuild a lasting social bond between the communities living in New Caledonia today, by enabling the Kanak people to establish new relations with France, reflecting the realities of our time.” But the immigration from metropolitan France and from French Overseas Territories and Departments never stopped.
In 2000, the settlers’ party started a political controversy pretending that the Noumea Accord defined the electorate body of voters to participate in the provincial elections, and therefore in the self-determination referendum, to include the migrants that settled in the Territory after 1998. On the contrary, the pro-independence parties and the French government said the accord limited the voters to those residing in New Caledonia ten years prior to 1998. In 2007, the French Parliament passed a law confirming the limitation of the electoral body.
The settlers’ party Rassemblement-UMP keeps claiming that 18,000 French citizens that settled in the Territory since should be granted the right to participate in the referendum on self-determination. Despite the French Parliament’s 2007 decision, the two elected members to the French National Assembly representing New Caledonia are still campaigning, pretending that the basic voting rights of French citizens are being violated.
When considering that these 18,000 French citizens are entrepreneurs or highly qualified employees of the private sector, one can easily understand how much they can already weigh as obstacles to a genuine exercise of the right to self-determination and independence by the people of the Territory. Therefore they cannot be considered as part of the people.
It is obvious that all people living in the Territory at the time of the self-determination referendum are not “concerned” by the future of the Territory in which they have neither family interests nor determined economic interests that tie them to the past and heighten their awareness in the future of the Territory.
15 January 2010
Chamorro Self-Determination
(Marianas Variety)
By Ben Pangelinan
Over 3,600 years before the lost European Ferdinand Magellan ascended into our small island chain, 3,830 years before my grandmother was born and 3,887 years ago before I was born ---the Chamorro people sailed the oceans and lived on this land they called Guahan.
While we may assume that all was well, there was turmoil and fights among the natives, as territories were established, villages were staked out and boundaries were defended. Then in 1668 they came to settle, bringing their own social and religious systems, work, faith and institutions to make our heathen lives civilized and whole.
Some of the natives succumbed and converted. Maga lahis Hineti, Ayihi, So’on and Odo fought on the sides of the occupiers and were rewarded with title and status. Hurao, Ahgao, Hula, Chaifi, Mata’pang and Tolahi and many others resisted and fought these outsiders. They resisted and waged fierce battles to preserve our land, sea, and the fruits and bounties that were ours. They believed it was more important to live as we knew how and to serve our wants and needs as we saw fit. (I Manmanaina-ta: I Manmaga’lahi yan I manma’gas; Geran Chamoru yan Espanot 1668-1695. Ed Benavente 2007).
The resistance lasted for over 27 years and resulted in bloodshed. From the very beginning, the people strongly resisted and would not abandon their ancient customs or bow to the authority of the Spaniards. Governor de la Corta wrote in his Memoria “one does not know which to admire most, whether the tenacity of the Spaniards in conflicts with the elements against a cunning and treacherous people during no less than 20 years of resistance, or that of the natives pursuing such a cruel and prolonged war which could only end in their annihilation and ruin.”
The truth of these words, “annihilation and ruin” is reflected in the “reduccion” which sought to convert the natives. Beginning in 1668, marked by the killing of Pale Diego de San Vitores in 1672 and ending in 1698, it saw the reduction of the Chamorro people from the estimated 60,000 to 100,000 at the time of discovery to just 3,678, according to the 1710 census, a mere 12 years after the end of the war. (The Marianas Islands 1884-1887 Random Notes. Francisco Olice y Garcia. Translated and Annotated by Marjorie G. Driver. Second Edition 2006).
Insight to the determination of the Chamorros to defy the occupiers in the face of certain annihilation and ruin is most clearly articulated by Chief Hurao:
“The Europeans would have done better to remain in their own country. We have no need of their help to live happily. They take away from us the primitive simplicity in which we live. They dare to take away our liberty, which should be dearer to us than life itself. They try to persuade us that we will be happier, and some of us had been blinded into believing their words. But can we have such sentiments if we reflect that we have been covered with misery and illness ever since those foreigners have come to disturb our peace? For what purpose do they teach us except to make us adopt their customs, to subject us to their laws, and lose the precious liberty left to us by our ancestors?
We are stronger than we think! We can quickly free ourselves from these foreigners! We must regain our former freedom.” (Speech by Chief Hurao. Dated: 1671).
But heart and determination was not enough to overcome the resources and the advance weapons of the occupiers. For the next 200 plus years, the people lived under the control and domination of this outside metropolitan government. Then in 1898, as part of the spoils of the Spanish-American War, a new domination was begun. This time it was under the United States of America. While the Spanish used force, faith and bullets to impose their will, this new power was more beguiling using seduction and law to get their way.
An interesting fact of the event of this war, which placed Guam under the United States, was that it was declared after the passage of the Tellar amendment to ensure that the United States would not establish permanent control over Cuba following the cessation of hostilities with Spain. The amended resolution demanded the Spanish withdrawal and authorized the President to use as much military force as he thought necessary to help Cuba gain independence from Spain. Of the four territories taken by the United States because of the war, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam, Puerto Rico and Guam continue to be under the administrative control of the United States. While the new occupier had a different approach towards the natives, they had one thing in common with the old—they imposed a government upon us, not of our own choosing. 1898 did not only bring a new occupying government over the people of Guam, it also brought a new occupant to Guam and that was my grandmother who was born on this island.
For the next four decades, the United States wielded its authority over the people, making decisions, which suited their needs and determined for us, the natives, what our needs were. Once again, the native leaders rose up to regain our rights, as a people in our own land..
Using reason and law, the weapons of the new occupiers, instead of sword and violence of the old, our leaders fought for our rights to govern ourselves and determine for ourselves what is best for our people. Once again, the occupier’s resources overwhelmed the meager resources of our people. We petitioned the Congress and even walked out of an institution they said gave us democracy and self-government when it was obvious they only did it to appease us. They continued to deny our right to self-determination and to our sisters in waiting—Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines.
Once again, war came and the geopolitical events affecting independent states brought us a short era of foreign domination and occupation of a new power as Japan invaded Guam. Again, our people resisted and fought, while the United States left the Chamorros behind to deal with the invading enemy. The need for a base of operations to defeat the Japanese saw the return of the Americans, as she reclaimed her lost territory to serve as the launching point to end the war. As part of the structure of the new world order, the states of the world organized as a Union Nations dedicated to resolving future disputes in a peaceful manner and recognized the need to respect and honor the rights of those peoples liberated from domination and war.
The signatory states of the United Nations Charter freely agreed to obligate themselves and accept responsibility for the “administration of territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount … and to this end they would seek to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the people, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its people and their varying stages of advancement.” (Chapter X1, Article 73 (b). United Nations Charter).
At the signing of the United Nations Charter, nearly 100 nations were voluntarily placed on the list of non-self governing territories by the signatory states which held these places before World War II and entrusted to them the administration of the affairs to be governed according to the Charter. The United States as part of this event, accepted the obligation over Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Micronesia).
Since the establishment of the list, over 80 of the territories from the original list of non-self governing territories have been herded by their administrative authority through the process of self-determination, attaining the free expression of the people, their ultimate desire. Despite this progress, by 1960 the General Assembly believed that the pace of decolonization of the non-self governing territories, which still included Guam was too slow and adopted two landmark resolutions.
The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples marked the shift from the “principle of self determination for these territories” to “all peoples have the right to self-determination.” It further states that, “All people have the right to self-determination by virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (Resolution 1514(XV).
A component of that Declaration of Colonial People, Resolution 1514 set forth three ways in which these territories can attain a full measure of self-determination as envisioned in the Charter.The first option is Free association with an independent State as a result of the voluntarily choice expressed through an informed and democratic process. The second option is through Integration with an independent State based on complete equality between the peoples of the non-self governing territory and the independent State. And the third option was Independence. Whatever the option chosen by the people of the non-self governing territory, it must be the result of the freely expressed wishes of these peoples.
As of today, there remain 16 non-self governing territories from the original list of close to 100 who have yet to exercise self-determination and freely express their choice. Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, all administrated by the United States are part of the last remaining 16. There have been attempts by administrating authorities to redefine not only the process of self-determination and decolonization, but the status of self government as well. Decolonization is what happens when one exercises self-determination. It is direct democracy and affirmative action freely expressed by the people themselves, clearly a right inherent in the people of Guam and clearly remains unexercised to this date.
With the signing of the Treaty of Paris on April 11, 1899 between Spain and the United States, Guam’s status as a territory under the sovereignty of the United States was cemented in law with the ratification of the treaty. While we may not accept it, Guam and its people became the property of the United States and the governing of the people of Guam and their rights fell to the Congress. Article IX of the Treaty of Paris declared, “The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants… shall be determined by the Congress.”
The subsequent placement of Guam on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United States effectively transferred the purview and process of determining the civil rights and political status for the people of Guam to the United Nations. The ratification and the acceptance of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions by the United States now governs the processes for granting the rights of the people of Guam to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, in my opinion, confers upon the people of Guam the rights contained in the applicable United Nations process.
The petition for citizenship and the subsequent granting of such citizenship by the Organic Act is consistent with the responsibility of the United States as the administrating authority over Guam to “provide progressive development of their free political institutions” in no way can be defended as the free expression of the people of Guam. Acceptance of such incremental development and the improvement in such status is not the free exercise of choosing such status and most certainly not the will of the people. It is still a will imposed upon the people—no matter how generous, no matter how benevolent, no matter how good the administrating authority is. The true test of their goodness is when we decide on our own what we want for ourselves and they support it. Unfortunately, they have not been good.
When we talk about self-determination, one of the key elements of this exercise is the free and educated expression of the people’s right in determining their political status for themselves. As the administrating authority, it is the responsibility of the United States to fund the education process, so that the status option, whichever one is selected is not the status offered by those who have the most money to present their case.
An educated choice is the essential element in the exercise of self-determination and the people must be educated on the promise and the reality of each option to ensure a free choice.
Who are the people vested with the right of self-determination? It is clear that these people are the native inhabitants of a territory who are living under a political status or part of a political relationship with another state without their free expression to do so. These are the people to which the United Nations Charter speaks to as the colonial peoples of the non-self governing territories. Beginning with the Guam Legislature’s empanelling of the Political Status Commission in 1973, the struggle by the people of Guam to exercise their right to self-determination as recognized under the international law was initiated. A special Commission on the Political Status of Guam followed leading to Guam’s first political status plebiscite in 1976. The plebiscite was open to all the voters of Guam with a majority selecting the option of improved status quo.
In 1977, the federally sanctioned Constitutional Convention resulted in the draft of a constitution that was approved by the Congress but ultimately rejected by the people of Guam. The constitution was still subject to a status imposed upon the people, not of their own choosing. With a new Commission on Self-Determination in 1980, another status plebiscite, opened to all registered voters was approved. The plebiscite was held in 1982 with seven available status options. When none received a majority, a run off was held with the choice of commonwealth status eclipsing statehood by a three to one margin. For the next fifteen years, Congress and the President deferred any concrete action to approve the Guam Commonwealth Act.
The Commonwealth Act provided for Chamorro self-determination, mutual consent and immigration control, agreed to by the United States in the Covenant with the Northern Marianas. In 1997 during a congressional hearing before the House Resources Committee, it became clear that federal officials would not support these provisions in Guam’s Commonwealth Act.
With the continued inaction by the United States, the people of Guam and the leaders of Guam turn to the international basis of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination as embodied by the acceptance of the United States of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions which clearly outline the process for the decolonization of a people who remain under the list of non-self governing territories. This foray into accepting a constitution, drafting a constitution, voting on a constitution without the freely expressed wishes of the people as to the political status upon which this constitution will be used to govern, is what is missing.
From that failure, the direction has changed. It is now the policy of the people of Guam to seek first the expression of our right to self-determination through the freely exercised vote on a plebiscite for the statuses available to us under the United Nations articles and resolutions. No granting of any amount of internal self-governance without the people of Guam first freely voting on the political status that frames such self-governance can be interpreted as an expression and the fulfillment of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination.
We look forward to this continued effort, this continued quest of the people of Guam – the colonized people of Guam to exercise and make their fully educated choice on the options presented to us under the UN Charter and UN Resolution to fulfill the right of self-determination inherent in a people subjugated and dominated by administrating powers over the last four hundred years.
By Ben Pangelinan
Over 3,600 years before the lost European Ferdinand Magellan ascended into our small island chain, 3,830 years before my grandmother was born and 3,887 years ago before I was born ---the Chamorro people sailed the oceans and lived on this land they called Guahan.
While we may assume that all was well, there was turmoil and fights among the natives, as territories were established, villages were staked out and boundaries were defended. Then in 1668 they came to settle, bringing their own social and religious systems, work, faith and institutions to make our heathen lives civilized and whole.
Some of the natives succumbed and converted. Maga lahis Hineti, Ayihi, So’on and Odo fought on the sides of the occupiers and were rewarded with title and status. Hurao, Ahgao, Hula, Chaifi, Mata’pang and Tolahi and many others resisted and fought these outsiders. They resisted and waged fierce battles to preserve our land, sea, and the fruits and bounties that were ours. They believed it was more important to live as we knew how and to serve our wants and needs as we saw fit. (I Manmanaina-ta: I Manmaga’lahi yan I manma’gas; Geran Chamoru yan Espanot 1668-1695. Ed Benavente 2007).
The resistance lasted for over 27 years and resulted in bloodshed. From the very beginning, the people strongly resisted and would not abandon their ancient customs or bow to the authority of the Spaniards. Governor de la Corta wrote in his Memoria “one does not know which to admire most, whether the tenacity of the Spaniards in conflicts with the elements against a cunning and treacherous people during no less than 20 years of resistance, or that of the natives pursuing such a cruel and prolonged war which could only end in their annihilation and ruin.”
The truth of these words, “annihilation and ruin” is reflected in the “reduccion” which sought to convert the natives. Beginning in 1668, marked by the killing of Pale Diego de San Vitores in 1672 and ending in 1698, it saw the reduction of the Chamorro people from the estimated 60,000 to 100,000 at the time of discovery to just 3,678, according to the 1710 census, a mere 12 years after the end of the war. (The Marianas Islands 1884-1887 Random Notes. Francisco Olice y Garcia. Translated and Annotated by Marjorie G. Driver. Second Edition 2006).
Insight to the determination of the Chamorros to defy the occupiers in the face of certain annihilation and ruin is most clearly articulated by Chief Hurao:
“The Europeans would have done better to remain in their own country. We have no need of their help to live happily. They take away from us the primitive simplicity in which we live. They dare to take away our liberty, which should be dearer to us than life itself. They try to persuade us that we will be happier, and some of us had been blinded into believing their words. But can we have such sentiments if we reflect that we have been covered with misery and illness ever since those foreigners have come to disturb our peace? For what purpose do they teach us except to make us adopt their customs, to subject us to their laws, and lose the precious liberty left to us by our ancestors?
We are stronger than we think! We can quickly free ourselves from these foreigners! We must regain our former freedom.” (Speech by Chief Hurao. Dated: 1671).
But heart and determination was not enough to overcome the resources and the advance weapons of the occupiers. For the next 200 plus years, the people lived under the control and domination of this outside metropolitan government. Then in 1898, as part of the spoils of the Spanish-American War, a new domination was begun. This time it was under the United States of America. While the Spanish used force, faith and bullets to impose their will, this new power was more beguiling using seduction and law to get their way.
An interesting fact of the event of this war, which placed Guam under the United States, was that it was declared after the passage of the Tellar amendment to ensure that the United States would not establish permanent control over Cuba following the cessation of hostilities with Spain. The amended resolution demanded the Spanish withdrawal and authorized the President to use as much military force as he thought necessary to help Cuba gain independence from Spain. Of the four territories taken by the United States because of the war, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam, Puerto Rico and Guam continue to be under the administrative control of the United States. While the new occupier had a different approach towards the natives, they had one thing in common with the old—they imposed a government upon us, not of our own choosing. 1898 did not only bring a new occupying government over the people of Guam, it also brought a new occupant to Guam and that was my grandmother who was born on this island.
For the next four decades, the United States wielded its authority over the people, making decisions, which suited their needs and determined for us, the natives, what our needs were. Once again, the native leaders rose up to regain our rights, as a people in our own land..
Using reason and law, the weapons of the new occupiers, instead of sword and violence of the old, our leaders fought for our rights to govern ourselves and determine for ourselves what is best for our people. Once again, the occupier’s resources overwhelmed the meager resources of our people. We petitioned the Congress and even walked out of an institution they said gave us democracy and self-government when it was obvious they only did it to appease us. They continued to deny our right to self-determination and to our sisters in waiting—Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines.
Once again, war came and the geopolitical events affecting independent states brought us a short era of foreign domination and occupation of a new power as Japan invaded Guam. Again, our people resisted and fought, while the United States left the Chamorros behind to deal with the invading enemy. The need for a base of operations to defeat the Japanese saw the return of the Americans, as she reclaimed her lost territory to serve as the launching point to end the war. As part of the structure of the new world order, the states of the world organized as a Union Nations dedicated to resolving future disputes in a peaceful manner and recognized the need to respect and honor the rights of those peoples liberated from domination and war.
The signatory states of the United Nations Charter freely agreed to obligate themselves and accept responsibility for the “administration of territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount … and to this end they would seek to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the people, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its people and their varying stages of advancement.” (Chapter X1, Article 73 (b). United Nations Charter).
At the signing of the United Nations Charter, nearly 100 nations were voluntarily placed on the list of non-self governing territories by the signatory states which held these places before World War II and entrusted to them the administration of the affairs to be governed according to the Charter. The United States as part of this event, accepted the obligation over Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Micronesia).
Since the establishment of the list, over 80 of the territories from the original list of non-self governing territories have been herded by their administrative authority through the process of self-determination, attaining the free expression of the people, their ultimate desire. Despite this progress, by 1960 the General Assembly believed that the pace of decolonization of the non-self governing territories, which still included Guam was too slow and adopted two landmark resolutions.
The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples marked the shift from the “principle of self determination for these territories” to “all peoples have the right to self-determination.” It further states that, “All people have the right to self-determination by virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (Resolution 1514(XV).
A component of that Declaration of Colonial People, Resolution 1514 set forth three ways in which these territories can attain a full measure of self-determination as envisioned in the Charter.The first option is Free association with an independent State as a result of the voluntarily choice expressed through an informed and democratic process. The second option is through Integration with an independent State based on complete equality between the peoples of the non-self governing territory and the independent State. And the third option was Independence. Whatever the option chosen by the people of the non-self governing territory, it must be the result of the freely expressed wishes of these peoples.
As of today, there remain 16 non-self governing territories from the original list of close to 100 who have yet to exercise self-determination and freely express their choice. Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, all administrated by the United States are part of the last remaining 16. There have been attempts by administrating authorities to redefine not only the process of self-determination and decolonization, but the status of self government as well. Decolonization is what happens when one exercises self-determination. It is direct democracy and affirmative action freely expressed by the people themselves, clearly a right inherent in the people of Guam and clearly remains unexercised to this date.
With the signing of the Treaty of Paris on April 11, 1899 between Spain and the United States, Guam’s status as a territory under the sovereignty of the United States was cemented in law with the ratification of the treaty. While we may not accept it, Guam and its people became the property of the United States and the governing of the people of Guam and their rights fell to the Congress. Article IX of the Treaty of Paris declared, “The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants… shall be determined by the Congress.”
The subsequent placement of Guam on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United States effectively transferred the purview and process of determining the civil rights and political status for the people of Guam to the United Nations. The ratification and the acceptance of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions by the United States now governs the processes for granting the rights of the people of Guam to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, in my opinion, confers upon the people of Guam the rights contained in the applicable United Nations process.
The petition for citizenship and the subsequent granting of such citizenship by the Organic Act is consistent with the responsibility of the United States as the administrating authority over Guam to “provide progressive development of their free political institutions” in no way can be defended as the free expression of the people of Guam. Acceptance of such incremental development and the improvement in such status is not the free exercise of choosing such status and most certainly not the will of the people. It is still a will imposed upon the people—no matter how generous, no matter how benevolent, no matter how good the administrating authority is. The true test of their goodness is when we decide on our own what we want for ourselves and they support it. Unfortunately, they have not been good.
When we talk about self-determination, one of the key elements of this exercise is the free and educated expression of the people’s right in determining their political status for themselves. As the administrating authority, it is the responsibility of the United States to fund the education process, so that the status option, whichever one is selected is not the status offered by those who have the most money to present their case.
An educated choice is the essential element in the exercise of self-determination and the people must be educated on the promise and the reality of each option to ensure a free choice.
Who are the people vested with the right of self-determination? It is clear that these people are the native inhabitants of a territory who are living under a political status or part of a political relationship with another state without their free expression to do so. These are the people to which the United Nations Charter speaks to as the colonial peoples of the non-self governing territories. Beginning with the Guam Legislature’s empanelling of the Political Status Commission in 1973, the struggle by the people of Guam to exercise their right to self-determination as recognized under the international law was initiated. A special Commission on the Political Status of Guam followed leading to Guam’s first political status plebiscite in 1976. The plebiscite was open to all the voters of Guam with a majority selecting the option of improved status quo.
In 1977, the federally sanctioned Constitutional Convention resulted in the draft of a constitution that was approved by the Congress but ultimately rejected by the people of Guam. The constitution was still subject to a status imposed upon the people, not of their own choosing. With a new Commission on Self-Determination in 1980, another status plebiscite, opened to all registered voters was approved. The plebiscite was held in 1982 with seven available status options. When none received a majority, a run off was held with the choice of commonwealth status eclipsing statehood by a three to one margin. For the next fifteen years, Congress and the President deferred any concrete action to approve the Guam Commonwealth Act.
The Commonwealth Act provided for Chamorro self-determination, mutual consent and immigration control, agreed to by the United States in the Covenant with the Northern Marianas. In 1997 during a congressional hearing before the House Resources Committee, it became clear that federal officials would not support these provisions in Guam’s Commonwealth Act.
With the continued inaction by the United States, the people of Guam and the leaders of Guam turn to the international basis of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination as embodied by the acceptance of the United States of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions which clearly outline the process for the decolonization of a people who remain under the list of non-self governing territories. This foray into accepting a constitution, drafting a constitution, voting on a constitution without the freely expressed wishes of the people as to the political status upon which this constitution will be used to govern, is what is missing.
From that failure, the direction has changed. It is now the policy of the people of Guam to seek first the expression of our right to self-determination through the freely exercised vote on a plebiscite for the statuses available to us under the United Nations articles and resolutions. No granting of any amount of internal self-governance without the people of Guam first freely voting on the political status that frames such self-governance can be interpreted as an expression and the fulfillment of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination.
We look forward to this continued effort, this continued quest of the people of Guam – the colonized people of Guam to exercise and make their fully educated choice on the options presented to us under the UN Charter and UN Resolution to fulfill the right of self-determination inherent in a people subjugated and dominated by administrating powers over the last four hundred years.
14 January 2010
Noumea takes control of education
The article New Caledonia Congress Endorses Further Autonomy originally published by Oceania Flash raised considerable interest in terms of devolution of power from the cosmopole to the overseas territories. An excellent analysis of this transfer of power from France to New Caledonia, consistent with the Noumea Accord, has been written by premier Pacific expert Nic Maclellan. The analysis has been made available to OTR with permission of the author.
By Nic Maclellan
Islands Business
In a massive shift of staffing and financial resources, the local government in New Caledonia will take control of secondary education from France in 2012. On November 30, members of New Caledonia’s Congress voted unanimously to accept the transfer of key powers from Paris to Noumea, including the regulation of maritime and domestic air traffic and—most importantly—control of secondary and private primary education.
In 2006, New Caledonia gained authority over government-run primary schools. But the decision to take on the secondary system means a doubling of the Pacific nation’s budget, with thousands of new staff coming under local authority. With 43,000 students in 180 schools, the number of teachers under Noumea’s control will leap to 4,500 (more than three times the current number). If the local government was to pay all the bills, the education budget would be 46 billion French Pacific francs (A$626 million), so sustainable and ongoing funding has been at the centre of negotiations with Paris for months.
Noumea Accord
The education reforms are part of the ongoing transfer of powers from Paris to Noumea under the Noumea Accord. The accord, signed in May 1998, set out a twenty-year transition towards a referendum on self-determination. Under the agreement, powers currently held by the French State are being transferred to New Caledonia in stages, supported by ongoing funding from France. Unlike France’s autonomy statute for French Polynesia, these powers cannot revert to Paris once transferred. There needs to be a 3/5 majority in New Caledonia’s Congress to approve the transfer, and all powers must be transferred by 2014, except for the key elements of nationhood—justice, public order, defence, finance and currency.
The transfer of these five remaining “sovereign powers” will be decided in a referendum on self-determination. According to the Noumea Accord, this vote on New Caledonia’s political status will be held between 2014 and 2018 and will focus on “the transfer of sovereign powers to New Caledonia, accession to an international status of full responsibility and transformation from citizenship to nationality.”
In the first government established under the Noumea Accord between 1999 and 2004, very little was done to address the transfer of powers: the government was dominated by the anti-independence Rassemblement UMP party, which continues to see New Caledonia as an integral part of the French republic. But after the 2004 local elections, the incoming government led by the Avenir Ensemble (Future Together) party began to negotiate the transfer of a series of powers.
Rewriting the Colonial Curriculum
The transfer of primary education provides an example of the challenge facing New Caledonia as it takes on responsibility for secondary education. Between 2002 and 2006, teachers, parents and a range of educational experts had to debate major changes to the education curriculum. In subjects like history and geography, there was a need to completely rewrite school textbooks, to reflect New Caledonia’s place as a Melanesian nation in the South Pacific, rather than a distant suburb of Paris!
There was extensive debate over whether to make Kanak vernacular languages compulsory for primary students (a proposal eventually abandoned because of concerns over the cost of teacher training and the availability of texts for the 28 Kanak languages). Teachers’ unions had to be persuaded to change the rules so non-qualified personnel could teach in the classroom, allowing older members of the indigenous Kanak community to help young school children learn their languages, history and culture.
Over the next two years, a similar process will be undertaken for secondary schools, with education coming under Noumea’s control from 1 January 2012. At present, 30 percent of students, mainly Kanak, drop out or are pushed out of school without obtaining any qualifications, so localisation of curriculum and teaching is vital.
For the FLNKS representatives in Congress, speaking in support of the reforms, the French colonial education system had soured successive generations of young people away from a joy of learning: “How many Kanak parents continue to feel resentment towards schools that so often bullied or rejected them? How many young people today still feel so uneasy in our schools, that they leave them with a deep hatred of the system? How else can we explain the regular violent attacks on school buildings and teachers? There is a fundamental problem: what can we do so that New Caledonians of all cultures are proud of their schools?”
According to New Caledonia’s President Philippe Gomes: “The process we’re undertaking must feed into a truly New Caledonian education system. That’s the reason we’re taking two years to implement the changes. In 2010, we will undertake an audit of our education system, to be followed by a great debate across the territory about education. Then in 2011 we’ll develop legislation for the school programme. Our aim is to end up with a more efficient education system that is better suited to our country.”
For months, New Caledonia’s government has been negotiating with the French authorities to guarantee the ongoing funding which will make the transfer possible. France currently funds teachers’ salaries and this has enormous budgetary implications if Noumea has to pay the bills in future years.
Rassemblement UMP leader Pierre Frogier, who serves as one of New Caledonia representatives in the French National Assembly, argued the change should only occur with guaranteed French funding: “Concerning secondary education, we must be assured that the French State will support us in a reasonable manner, to allow New Caledonia to ensure that the quality of its education system is at least as good as currently exists. This especially involves the free provision of staffing and the financing of two new high schools at Mont-Dore and Pouembout, which we have been waiting for many years.”
In a compromise to gain support from anti-independence politicians—worried that education standards will fall—Kanak leaders accepted that France should retain control of some aspects of education policy. Paris has retained authority over teacher qualification, issuing diplomas and approving the final school curriculum.
More powers to come
There’s more changes to come. Under the latest decision, control of maritime affairs in New Caledonia’s territorial waters will take effect on January 1, 2011 and control of domestic air transport and airport police in January 2013 (however the international airport at Tontouta will remain under French control).
By December 2011, the congress must decide on the transfer of other areas, including civil and commercial law, civil security and control of key statutory bodies including the land mobilisation and development office Agence pour le développement rural et l’aménagement foncier (ADRAF) and the Agence pour le développement de la culture Kanak (ADCK), which runs cultural programs and the Tjibaou Cultural Centre. Before 2014, Noumea must appeal to Paris for authority over tertiary education, television and radio and the financial governance of local councils.
While conservative members of the government of New Caledonia see this process as a shift to greater local autonomy within the French Republic, the FLNKS independence movement sees the changes as a vital step on the path to decolonisation. Gerard Regnier from the Union Calédonienne party states: “For us in FLNKS, the transfer of powers must be well organised and the timetable must be maintained. You must remember that the position of FLNKS is that all powers must be transferred before 2014, except of course the sovereign powers.”
By Nic Maclellan
Islands Business
In a massive shift of staffing and financial resources, the local government in New Caledonia will take control of secondary education from France in 2012. On November 30, members of New Caledonia’s Congress voted unanimously to accept the transfer of key powers from Paris to Noumea, including the regulation of maritime and domestic air traffic and—most importantly—control of secondary and private primary education.
In 2006, New Caledonia gained authority over government-run primary schools. But the decision to take on the secondary system means a doubling of the Pacific nation’s budget, with thousands of new staff coming under local authority. With 43,000 students in 180 schools, the number of teachers under Noumea’s control will leap to 4,500 (more than three times the current number). If the local government was to pay all the bills, the education budget would be 46 billion French Pacific francs (A$626 million), so sustainable and ongoing funding has been at the centre of negotiations with Paris for months.
Noumea Accord
The education reforms are part of the ongoing transfer of powers from Paris to Noumea under the Noumea Accord. The accord, signed in May 1998, set out a twenty-year transition towards a referendum on self-determination. Under the agreement, powers currently held by the French State are being transferred to New Caledonia in stages, supported by ongoing funding from France. Unlike France’s autonomy statute for French Polynesia, these powers cannot revert to Paris once transferred. There needs to be a 3/5 majority in New Caledonia’s Congress to approve the transfer, and all powers must be transferred by 2014, except for the key elements of nationhood—justice, public order, defence, finance and currency.
The transfer of these five remaining “sovereign powers” will be decided in a referendum on self-determination. According to the Noumea Accord, this vote on New Caledonia’s political status will be held between 2014 and 2018 and will focus on “the transfer of sovereign powers to New Caledonia, accession to an international status of full responsibility and transformation from citizenship to nationality.”
In the first government established under the Noumea Accord between 1999 and 2004, very little was done to address the transfer of powers: the government was dominated by the anti-independence Rassemblement UMP party, which continues to see New Caledonia as an integral part of the French republic. But after the 2004 local elections, the incoming government led by the Avenir Ensemble (Future Together) party began to negotiate the transfer of a series of powers.
Rewriting the Colonial Curriculum
The transfer of primary education provides an example of the challenge facing New Caledonia as it takes on responsibility for secondary education. Between 2002 and 2006, teachers, parents and a range of educational experts had to debate major changes to the education curriculum. In subjects like history and geography, there was a need to completely rewrite school textbooks, to reflect New Caledonia’s place as a Melanesian nation in the South Pacific, rather than a distant suburb of Paris!
There was extensive debate over whether to make Kanak vernacular languages compulsory for primary students (a proposal eventually abandoned because of concerns over the cost of teacher training and the availability of texts for the 28 Kanak languages). Teachers’ unions had to be persuaded to change the rules so non-qualified personnel could teach in the classroom, allowing older members of the indigenous Kanak community to help young school children learn their languages, history and culture.
Over the next two years, a similar process will be undertaken for secondary schools, with education coming under Noumea’s control from 1 January 2012. At present, 30 percent of students, mainly Kanak, drop out or are pushed out of school without obtaining any qualifications, so localisation of curriculum and teaching is vital.
For the FLNKS representatives in Congress, speaking in support of the reforms, the French colonial education system had soured successive generations of young people away from a joy of learning: “How many Kanak parents continue to feel resentment towards schools that so often bullied or rejected them? How many young people today still feel so uneasy in our schools, that they leave them with a deep hatred of the system? How else can we explain the regular violent attacks on school buildings and teachers? There is a fundamental problem: what can we do so that New Caledonians of all cultures are proud of their schools?”
According to New Caledonia’s President Philippe Gomes: “The process we’re undertaking must feed into a truly New Caledonian education system. That’s the reason we’re taking two years to implement the changes. In 2010, we will undertake an audit of our education system, to be followed by a great debate across the territory about education. Then in 2011 we’ll develop legislation for the school programme. Our aim is to end up with a more efficient education system that is better suited to our country.”
For months, New Caledonia’s government has been negotiating with the French authorities to guarantee the ongoing funding which will make the transfer possible. France currently funds teachers’ salaries and this has enormous budgetary implications if Noumea has to pay the bills in future years.
Rassemblement UMP leader Pierre Frogier, who serves as one of New Caledonia representatives in the French National Assembly, argued the change should only occur with guaranteed French funding: “Concerning secondary education, we must be assured that the French State will support us in a reasonable manner, to allow New Caledonia to ensure that the quality of its education system is at least as good as currently exists. This especially involves the free provision of staffing and the financing of two new high schools at Mont-Dore and Pouembout, which we have been waiting for many years.”
In a compromise to gain support from anti-independence politicians—worried that education standards will fall—Kanak leaders accepted that France should retain control of some aspects of education policy. Paris has retained authority over teacher qualification, issuing diplomas and approving the final school curriculum.
More powers to come
There’s more changes to come. Under the latest decision, control of maritime affairs in New Caledonia’s territorial waters will take effect on January 1, 2011 and control of domestic air transport and airport police in January 2013 (however the international airport at Tontouta will remain under French control).
By December 2011, the congress must decide on the transfer of other areas, including civil and commercial law, civil security and control of key statutory bodies including the land mobilisation and development office Agence pour le développement rural et l’aménagement foncier (ADRAF) and the Agence pour le développement de la culture Kanak (ADCK), which runs cultural programs and the Tjibaou Cultural Centre. Before 2014, Noumea must appeal to Paris for authority over tertiary education, television and radio and the financial governance of local councils.
While conservative members of the government of New Caledonia see this process as a shift to greater local autonomy within the French Republic, the FLNKS independence movement sees the changes as a vital step on the path to decolonisation. Gerard Regnier from the Union Calédonienne party states: “For us in FLNKS, the transfer of powers must be well organised and the timetable must be maintained. You must remember that the position of FLNKS is that all powers must be transferred before 2014, except of course the sovereign powers.”
13 January 2010
French Guiana, Martinique Reject Autonomy Proposal
11/01/2010
AFP - Martinique and French Guiana voted massively against more autonomy for their French overseas departments, fearful a change of status would lead to less generous financial support from Paris. Nearly 79 percent of voters on the Caribbean island of Martinique said no to more autonomy, while the result was almost 70 percent in Guiana, the tropical South American territory wedged between Brazil and Suriname.
Participation was 55 percent in Martinique and slightly over 48 percent in Guiana, according to definitive results released by France's ministry for overseas departments. The votes were held a year after French overseas departments in the Caribbean as well as the Indian Ocean island of La Reunion were convulsed by strikes and rioting over low wages and high prices.
President Nicolas Sarkozy proposed holding the referendums when he travelled to Martinique in June as part of a drive to heal ties following the general strike which degenerated into weeks of rioting at the start of 2009. Martinique, which has around 400,000 residents, and Guiana, a vast territory with some 200,000 residents, were asked to approve or reject a change in status for their departments.
The wording of the question was technical but in essence it asked voters if they wanted to change the status to make it more like that governing more autonomous French territories such as New Caledonia in the Pacific. Sixty years after being granted the status of department -- which makes them legally as French as Normandy or Provence -- the tropical territories face recurrent social problems including high unemployment and low wages despite massive financial support from the state.
The mayor of Guiana's capital Cayenne, Rodolphe Alexandre, said the question of financing drove the campaign and the result of the referendum. While recognising the current statute which sets out their status has its drawbacks, Alexandre said "in the end its not a problem of powers or the statute but of financing and strategy. That is what changed people's minds." The result is a "victory for democracy, for the silent majority," he told AFP.
France's opposition Socialists suggested that Sarkozy's warning that more autonomy would come with less state support influenced the result. "What could have weighed on the result is the president saying in February 2009 that with the transfer of powers to overseas departments funding should be from local resources," Socialist party chief for overseas departments Axel Urgin said on RFO radio.
But Sarkozy said the result reflected strong ties to France. "The choice is evidence of the attachment of Guianians and Martinicans to a status which is close to those of communities in metropolitan France and reaffirms the close ties which unite them to the Republic," he was quoted as saying in a statement by his office.
"No" campaigners had warned the French state might be seeking to disengage from its overseas departments and reduce their people's social benefits, which are largely the same as in France. Martinique, a major rum and banana producer and a tourist destination for mainland French seeking winter sunshine, has an unemployment rate topping 20 percent, more than twice that of metropolitan France.
Guiana, perhaps best known as the launch site for Europe's Ariane space rockets, faces similarly high joblessness. Voters on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, which had also been rocked by strikes, did not take part in the consultations as their local leaders decided that the tense social climate was not conducive to holding a referendum.
Guiana and Martinique will now hold a second referendum on January 24 in which voters will be asked to give their opinion only on whether they want administrative simplifications to be carried out.
By Rodolphe Lamy,
Associated Press
Jan 10, 11:46 pm ET
FORT-DE-FRANCE, Martinique – Voters in Martinique and French Guiana overwhelmingly rejected a proposal Sunday to give local government more autonomy while remaining a part of France. Election officials in Martinique said 80 percent of voters rejected the plan, with 55 percent participation, according to preliminary results. Some votes remained to be counted, but officials did not expect the results to change significantly.
In French Guiana, 70 percent voted "no," with 48 percent turnout.
Some Martinique officials viewed the proposed autonomy as an opportunity for the Caribbean island to make decisions in areas such as development, education and employment. They argued the remote French government did not know what was best for the island. "Martinique and French Guiana missed a date with history and passed alongside a reform that would have allowed them to better understand their future," said Claude Lise, president of Martinique's General Council, one of two legislative bodies.
But opponents — including leaders of the Progressive Martinique Party founded by the late Aime Cesaire, a renowned poet and politician who long supported autonomy — said the referendum was neither the opportunity nor the solution to emerge from tough economic times. An estimated 50,000 people are unemployed on Martinique, which is home to 400,000 inhabitants.
The ballot measure in each of the two French Caribbean departments called for giving local government more administrative leeway. French President Nicolas Sarkozy would have determined the extent of the autonomy.
Martinique legislator Alfred Almont said voters were correct to reject the referendum because the island could not accept a proposal without some guarantee of what autonomy it would receive. The proposed Article 74 would have replaced Article 73 of the constitution, which has governed the political status of Martinique and French Guiana as French departments for 64 years.
The referendum was a first for French Guiana, while Martinique rejected a similar measure six years ago.
With Sunday's measure failing, voters will now decide Jan. 24 whether to support the creation of a local authority that will combine the existing general and regional councils that govern each department. Jaqueline Manger, a Martinique resident who voted against the proposal, said Article 73 provided assurance that the island would continue to develop socially and economically.
"I would like a change, but I don't think we are ready yet. I don't trust the people who lead the regional council and the general council," she said. The referendum came one year after violent strikes paralyzed the islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe for more than a month as union leaders demanded higher wages and lower prices. Business leaders agreed to several changes, but some unrest continues.
Sarkozy suggested the referendum last June following the strikes, saying the status of France's overseas departments was based on an "unfair, obscure and biased" system.
Guadeloupe did not participate in the referendum.
AFP - Martinique and French Guiana voted massively against more autonomy for their French overseas departments, fearful a change of status would lead to less generous financial support from Paris. Nearly 79 percent of voters on the Caribbean island of Martinique said no to more autonomy, while the result was almost 70 percent in Guiana, the tropical South American territory wedged between Brazil and Suriname.
Participation was 55 percent in Martinique and slightly over 48 percent in Guiana, according to definitive results released by France's ministry for overseas departments. The votes were held a year after French overseas departments in the Caribbean as well as the Indian Ocean island of La Reunion were convulsed by strikes and rioting over low wages and high prices.
President Nicolas Sarkozy proposed holding the referendums when he travelled to Martinique in June as part of a drive to heal ties following the general strike which degenerated into weeks of rioting at the start of 2009. Martinique, which has around 400,000 residents, and Guiana, a vast territory with some 200,000 residents, were asked to approve or reject a change in status for their departments.
The wording of the question was technical but in essence it asked voters if they wanted to change the status to make it more like that governing more autonomous French territories such as New Caledonia in the Pacific. Sixty years after being granted the status of department -- which makes them legally as French as Normandy or Provence -- the tropical territories face recurrent social problems including high unemployment and low wages despite massive financial support from the state.
The mayor of Guiana's capital Cayenne, Rodolphe Alexandre, said the question of financing drove the campaign and the result of the referendum. While recognising the current statute which sets out their status has its drawbacks, Alexandre said "in the end its not a problem of powers or the statute but of financing and strategy. That is what changed people's minds." The result is a "victory for democracy, for the silent majority," he told AFP.
France's opposition Socialists suggested that Sarkozy's warning that more autonomy would come with less state support influenced the result. "What could have weighed on the result is the president saying in February 2009 that with the transfer of powers to overseas departments funding should be from local resources," Socialist party chief for overseas departments Axel Urgin said on RFO radio.
But Sarkozy said the result reflected strong ties to France. "The choice is evidence of the attachment of Guianians and Martinicans to a status which is close to those of communities in metropolitan France and reaffirms the close ties which unite them to the Republic," he was quoted as saying in a statement by his office.
"No" campaigners had warned the French state might be seeking to disengage from its overseas departments and reduce their people's social benefits, which are largely the same as in France. Martinique, a major rum and banana producer and a tourist destination for mainland French seeking winter sunshine, has an unemployment rate topping 20 percent, more than twice that of metropolitan France.
Guiana, perhaps best known as the launch site for Europe's Ariane space rockets, faces similarly high joblessness. Voters on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, which had also been rocked by strikes, did not take part in the consultations as their local leaders decided that the tense social climate was not conducive to holding a referendum.
Guiana and Martinique will now hold a second referendum on January 24 in which voters will be asked to give their opinion only on whether they want administrative simplifications to be carried out.
By Rodolphe Lamy,
Associated Press
Jan 10, 11:46 pm ET
FORT-DE-FRANCE, Martinique – Voters in Martinique and French Guiana overwhelmingly rejected a proposal Sunday to give local government more autonomy while remaining a part of France. Election officials in Martinique said 80 percent of voters rejected the plan, with 55 percent participation, according to preliminary results. Some votes remained to be counted, but officials did not expect the results to change significantly.
In French Guiana, 70 percent voted "no," with 48 percent turnout.
Some Martinique officials viewed the proposed autonomy as an opportunity for the Caribbean island to make decisions in areas such as development, education and employment. They argued the remote French government did not know what was best for the island. "Martinique and French Guiana missed a date with history and passed alongside a reform that would have allowed them to better understand their future," said Claude Lise, president of Martinique's General Council, one of two legislative bodies.
But opponents — including leaders of the Progressive Martinique Party founded by the late Aime Cesaire, a renowned poet and politician who long supported autonomy — said the referendum was neither the opportunity nor the solution to emerge from tough economic times. An estimated 50,000 people are unemployed on Martinique, which is home to 400,000 inhabitants.
The ballot measure in each of the two French Caribbean departments called for giving local government more administrative leeway. French President Nicolas Sarkozy would have determined the extent of the autonomy.
Martinique legislator Alfred Almont said voters were correct to reject the referendum because the island could not accept a proposal without some guarantee of what autonomy it would receive. The proposed Article 74 would have replaced Article 73 of the constitution, which has governed the political status of Martinique and French Guiana as French departments for 64 years.
The referendum was a first for French Guiana, while Martinique rejected a similar measure six years ago.
With Sunday's measure failing, voters will now decide Jan. 24 whether to support the creation of a local authority that will combine the existing general and regional councils that govern each department. Jaqueline Manger, a Martinique resident who voted against the proposal, said Article 73 provided assurance that the island would continue to develop socially and economically.
"I would like a change, but I don't think we are ready yet. I don't trust the people who lead the regional council and the general council," she said. The referendum came one year after violent strikes paralyzed the islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe for more than a month as union leaders demanded higher wages and lower prices. Business leaders agreed to several changes, but some unrest continues.
Sarkozy suggested the referendum last June following the strikes, saying the status of France's overseas departments was based on an "unfair, obscure and biased" system.
Guadeloupe did not participate in the referendum.
12 January 2010
UN Adopts Annual Self-Determination Resolution
The United Nations (UN) General Assembly at year’s end last month adopted by consensus its annual resolution on the "Universal Realisation of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination." The adoption followed the approval of the measure, without a vote, in the UN Third Committee last November. The resolution adds to the lengthy international legislative authority in promotion of self-determination for all non self-governing territories. The resolution is primarily seen, however, in the context of territories under occupation.
UN human rights bodies such as the Human Rights Council, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), among others, have not sufficiently widened their focus to review other existing dependency arrangements as they examine issues of human rights. It should be recalled that self-determination and its resultant decolonisation are regarded by UN resolution as fundamental human rights by General Assembly resolution.
UN procedures appear to separate consideration of self-determination issues from decolonisation matters. Thus, decolonisation is discussed in the Fourth Committee whilst self-determination issues are addressed in the Third Committee. The system does not facilitate cooperation between the two committees on these obvious complementary issues. Past recommendations made by some member countries to consider the decolonisation and self-determination issues together have not been adopted. Interestingly, decolonisation is placed within the broad are of focus of "Peace and Security" rather than "Human Rights."
Since the 1990s, only one territory formally listed by the UN has been decolonised. Perhaps the prevailing compartmentalisation of these issues by the UN should be changed along the lines of the earlier year recommendations since human rights issues get far more attention than that of decolonisation these days.
United Nations Resolution on the Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination
The General Assembly,
Reaffirming the importance, for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights, of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights, as well as in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,
Welcoming the progressive exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial, foreign or alien occupation and their emergence into sovereign statehood and independence,
Deeply concerned at the continuation of acts or threats of foreign military intervention and occupation that are threatening to suppress, or have already suppressed, the right to self-determination of peoples and nations,
Expressing grave concern that, as a consequence of the persistence of such actions, millions of people have been and are being uprooted from their homes as refugees and displaced persons, and emphasizing the urgent need for concerted international action to alleviate their condition,
Recalling the relevant resolutions regarding the violation of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights as a result of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, adopted by the Commission on Human Rights at its sixty-first and previous sessions,
Reaffirming its previous resolutions on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, including resolution 63/163 of 18 December 2008,
Reaffirming also its resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000, containing the United Nations Millennium Declaration, and recalling its resolution 60/1 of 16 September 2005, containing the 2005 World Summit Outcome, which, inter alia, upheld the right to self-determination of peoples under colonial domination and
foreign occupation,
Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on the right of peoples to self-determination,
1. Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
2. Declares its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since these have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world;
3. Calls upon those States responsible to cease immediately their military intervention in and occupation of foreign countries and territories and all acts of repression, discrimination, exploitation and maltreatment, in particular the brutal and inhuman methods reportedly employed for the execution of those acts against
the peoples concerned;
4. Deplores the plight of millions of refugees and displaced persons who have been uprooted as a result of the aforementioned acts, and reaffirms their right to return to their homes voluntarily in safety and honour;
5. Requests the Human Rights Council to continue to give special attention to the violation of human rights, especially the right to self-determination, resulting from foreign military intervention, aggression or occupation;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the question to the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session under the item entitled “Right of peoples to self-determination.”
UN human rights bodies such as the Human Rights Council, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), among others, have not sufficiently widened their focus to review other existing dependency arrangements as they examine issues of human rights. It should be recalled that self-determination and its resultant decolonisation are regarded by UN resolution as fundamental human rights by General Assembly resolution.
UN procedures appear to separate consideration of self-determination issues from decolonisation matters. Thus, decolonisation is discussed in the Fourth Committee whilst self-determination issues are addressed in the Third Committee. The system does not facilitate cooperation between the two committees on these obvious complementary issues. Past recommendations made by some member countries to consider the decolonisation and self-determination issues together have not been adopted. Interestingly, decolonisation is placed within the broad are of focus of "Peace and Security" rather than "Human Rights."
Since the 1990s, only one territory formally listed by the UN has been decolonised. Perhaps the prevailing compartmentalisation of these issues by the UN should be changed along the lines of the earlier year recommendations since human rights issues get far more attention than that of decolonisation these days.
United Nations Resolution on the Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination
The General Assembly,
Reaffirming the importance, for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights, of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights, as well as in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,
Welcoming the progressive exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial, foreign or alien occupation and their emergence into sovereign statehood and independence,
Deeply concerned at the continuation of acts or threats of foreign military intervention and occupation that are threatening to suppress, or have already suppressed, the right to self-determination of peoples and nations,
Expressing grave concern that, as a consequence of the persistence of such actions, millions of people have been and are being uprooted from their homes as refugees and displaced persons, and emphasizing the urgent need for concerted international action to alleviate their condition,
Recalling the relevant resolutions regarding the violation of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights as a result of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, adopted by the Commission on Human Rights at its sixty-first and previous sessions,
Reaffirming its previous resolutions on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, including resolution 63/163 of 18 December 2008,
Reaffirming also its resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000, containing the United Nations Millennium Declaration, and recalling its resolution 60/1 of 16 September 2005, containing the 2005 World Summit Outcome, which, inter alia, upheld the right to self-determination of peoples under colonial domination and
foreign occupation,
Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on the right of peoples to self-determination,
1. Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights;
2. Declares its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since these have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world;
3. Calls upon those States responsible to cease immediately their military intervention in and occupation of foreign countries and territories and all acts of repression, discrimination, exploitation and maltreatment, in particular the brutal and inhuman methods reportedly employed for the execution of those acts against
the peoples concerned;
4. Deplores the plight of millions of refugees and displaced persons who have been uprooted as a result of the aforementioned acts, and reaffirms their right to return to their homes voluntarily in safety and honour;
5. Requests the Human Rights Council to continue to give special attention to the violation of human rights, especially the right to self-determination, resulting from foreign military intervention, aggression or occupation;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the question to the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session under the item entitled “Right of peoples to self-determination.”
11 January 2010
NEW CALEDONIA CONGRESS ENDORSES FURTHER AUTONOMY
Significant transfer of authority from France
NOUMEA, New Caledonia
Oceania Flash
New Caledonia’s Congress has on Monday endorsed unanimously a significant progress in the French territory’s autonomy process with a now-approved takeover of such key sectors as secondary education, private primary education, police and security as well as domestic maritime and air transports. In what Congress Speaker Harold Martin labelled a "historic session", the extraordinary meeting is another milestone in the implementation of the autonomy Nouméa Accord, signed in May 1998, which sets out a road map for New Caledonia’s emancipation path.It sets out a gradual process of transfer of powers from metropolitan France to local authorities and a referendum on independence that could take place any time between 2014 and 2018.
Other powers and competences had earlier been transferred locally, like primary education, labour, external trade and mining. But Martin said this week’s vote was the first time the latest move was directly implemented by the local Congress. Now that the transfers have been approved in principle, they are expected to be implemented not later than January 1, 2012. In the case of domestic maritime and domestic air transports, the deadlines are respectively January 1, 2011 and 2013. Other transfers in the pipeline would directly touch on commercial law, civil law, higher education and telecom.
Reacting to the vote, New Caledonia’s President Philippe Gomès said the unanimous vote took place in favour precisely because the French government had confirmed it would provide the funds to implement such transfers and to run those public service sectors. In the case of secondary education, the estimated cost amounted to a yearly 46 billion French Pacific Francs (CFP, 577 million US dollars), including the salaries of some 4,500 teachers.
But Gomès also stressed that it was now, most importantly, up to New Caledonia’s population to assume ownership of the autonomy Nouméa Accord. "Our country’s common destiny will be built in our country and in our classrooms", he told local media.
In July this year, as the French Parliament was debating on New Caledonia’s emancipation issue, French minister for overseas countries and territories Marie-Luce Penchard stressed that New Caledonia’s transfer of powers, as enshrined in the 1998 autonomy Nouméa Accord, should not be seen as a an "abandonment" of the French Pacific dependency. But Penchard, while reassuring on the transfer process, also pointed out at the time that at one stage or another, concerned entities had to take responsibility for and appropriate their autonomy process. Those remarks were unencrypted by French media as amounting to a kind of "you can’t eat your cake and have it".
Pro-French parties in New Caledonia have in past months insisted that the "transfer" process should at no stage be "detrimental" or entail adverse impacts on the population and to its "quality of life". In particular reference to the secondary education sector, debates have been rife in recent months with some expressing concerns that transferring this power to local authority and therefore from the French education ministry would lead to what has often been referred to as a "coconut Baccalaureate" with lesser value on the job market, locally, nationally, regionally and internationally. Another part of the agreed transfer is civil security, for an estimated 7.3 million US dollars.
In July this year, the French High Commission in Nouméa announced that during the 2008 financial year, France has pumped over two billion US dollars into New Caledonia. This represents an increase compared to French direct injections in the previous year (1.98 billion US dollars). The bulk of the yearly injection is dedicated to operating expenses of French public services and the salaries of the public servants. The total also takes into account the current tax exemption scheme that allows investors into New Caledonia to benefit from significant fiscal holidays, for an estimated total of some 95 million US dollars.
NOUMEA, New Caledonia
Oceania Flash
New Caledonia’s Congress has on Monday endorsed unanimously a significant progress in the French territory’s autonomy process with a now-approved takeover of such key sectors as secondary education, private primary education, police and security as well as domestic maritime and air transports. In what Congress Speaker Harold Martin labelled a "historic session", the extraordinary meeting is another milestone in the implementation of the autonomy Nouméa Accord, signed in May 1998, which sets out a road map for New Caledonia’s emancipation path.It sets out a gradual process of transfer of powers from metropolitan France to local authorities and a referendum on independence that could take place any time between 2014 and 2018.
Other powers and competences had earlier been transferred locally, like primary education, labour, external trade and mining. But Martin said this week’s vote was the first time the latest move was directly implemented by the local Congress. Now that the transfers have been approved in principle, they are expected to be implemented not later than January 1, 2012. In the case of domestic maritime and domestic air transports, the deadlines are respectively January 1, 2011 and 2013. Other transfers in the pipeline would directly touch on commercial law, civil law, higher education and telecom.
Reacting to the vote, New Caledonia’s President Philippe Gomès said the unanimous vote took place in favour precisely because the French government had confirmed it would provide the funds to implement such transfers and to run those public service sectors. In the case of secondary education, the estimated cost amounted to a yearly 46 billion French Pacific Francs (CFP, 577 million US dollars), including the salaries of some 4,500 teachers.
But Gomès also stressed that it was now, most importantly, up to New Caledonia’s population to assume ownership of the autonomy Nouméa Accord. "Our country’s common destiny will be built in our country and in our classrooms", he told local media.
In July this year, as the French Parliament was debating on New Caledonia’s emancipation issue, French minister for overseas countries and territories Marie-Luce Penchard stressed that New Caledonia’s transfer of powers, as enshrined in the 1998 autonomy Nouméa Accord, should not be seen as a an "abandonment" of the French Pacific dependency. But Penchard, while reassuring on the transfer process, also pointed out at the time that at one stage or another, concerned entities had to take responsibility for and appropriate their autonomy process. Those remarks were unencrypted by French media as amounting to a kind of "you can’t eat your cake and have it".
Pro-French parties in New Caledonia have in past months insisted that the "transfer" process should at no stage be "detrimental" or entail adverse impacts on the population and to its "quality of life". In particular reference to the secondary education sector, debates have been rife in recent months with some expressing concerns that transferring this power to local authority and therefore from the French education ministry would lead to what has often been referred to as a "coconut Baccalaureate" with lesser value on the job market, locally, nationally, regionally and internationally. Another part of the agreed transfer is civil security, for an estimated 7.3 million US dollars.
In July this year, the French High Commission in Nouméa announced that during the 2008 financial year, France has pumped over two billion US dollars into New Caledonia. This represents an increase compared to French direct injections in the previous year (1.98 billion US dollars). The bulk of the yearly injection is dedicated to operating expenses of French public services and the salaries of the public servants. The total also takes into account the current tax exemption scheme that allows investors into New Caledonia to benefit from significant fiscal holidays, for an estimated total of some 95 million US dollars.
05 January 2010
The Real Story Behind the Guam Military Buildup
UPDATED
by Koohan Paik
THE MILITARY BUILDUP IN THE MARIANA ISLANDS
Guam, a possession of the United States, is one of 15 islands in the Marianas, an archipelago in the western Pacific so pristine and rich in biodiversity that it was recently designated a federally protected Marine National Monument. However, military activities are exempt from this so-called “protection” and the Department of Defense has plans to effectively destroy the natural habitats of these islands with the “Guam Military Buildup,”slated to take place over the next five years. Guam, an island only half the size of Cape Cod with a current population of 178,000, will soon become home to 80,000 additional Marines, dependents and laborers. The military already owns a third of the island, and the Marines aren't the only unit expanding. The Army, as well, is building a missile defense system; the Air Force is adding more drones; and the Navy is tearing out 2.3 million square feet of a healthy reef ecosystem to make way to house a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Though the people of these islands are being told that the Buildup will improve their quality of life, the facts show otherwise. Below is a handout being distributed among the people of Guam and the Marianas to shed light on the reality of how the Buildup will impact their islands.
The Military Buildup being planned for Guam and the rest of the Mariana Islands chain is being sold to us as a once-in-a-lifetime economic opportunity. But if you read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) put out by the Department of Defense, it quickly becomes clear that this is far from the truth. And if you know your Pacific history, it is a simple connection of dots to see that the Buildup will likely be as cataclysmic for our people and environment as the atomic testing at Bikini was for the Marshall Islands. Below are a collection of facts taken from the Draft Environmental Statement released November 20, 2009:
I. ECONOMY
Myth: The military buildup will be great for Guam’s economy.
Fact: The military’s DEIS document states that very little money will go into Guam’s economy. According to the report, most contracts will go to large off-island companies, not to local contractors. Most money spent by the 80,000 newcomers will be spent on base, at companies also based on-island, not at local businesses. The 40,000 low-paid workers imported from the Philippines will not spend their money on Guam, but will send most of it back home.
And don’t think that Guam residents will benefit from an increase in construction jobs. According to the DEIS, at the projected 2014 peak in such jobs, only 2,566 will go to Guam residents, while 15,157 will be taken by off-island workers.
In addition, the military conducted a separate report which revealed that the cost of living will rise, but wages will remain low too low to keep up with skyrocketing costs. Guam Housing Urban Renewal Authority Executive Director, Benny Pinaula, does not feel the buildup will help keep housing affordable.
How will GovGuam fare during the buildup? The costs to the Government of Guam associated with the buildup will be $2.9 Billion dollars. But GovGuam officials are uncertain as to how those projects will be paid for.
Guam Senator and local industrialist Eddie Calvo explained that the buildup will cost millions of dollars to maintain roads, to upgrade wastewater treatment and by taking revenue from the port. Calvo recently wrote that the $50 million appropriated for roads within the 2010 Defense Budget is “a drop in the bucket to what is required to expand the roads and harden bridges to handle the thousands of containers and workers that will be arriving on island.”
Calvo also pointed out that EPA has ordered the local government to spend nearly $300 million dollars to develop secondary wastewater treatment facilities. Though the military will ultimately be end-users of the northern facilities, it appears that the local government will bear the brunt of the upfront costs, resulting from EPA’s edict.
According to Calvo, it has been discovered that commercial cargo has been shipping out of the Navy side of the harbor. If this trend is a prediction of things to come, this may cost the local government millions of dollars in lost revenue in the future.
To sum things up, the military build up will NOT help local Guam businesses, will NOT provide a boon in construction jobs, will NOT be an economic boost for local Guam residents, and will cost Guam's government millions of dollars. The fact that the DEIS was written by big defense contractors in Hawaii, not Guam, indicates where the money will go, and it is not to you and me.
II. NOT A “DONE DEAL”
Myth: The Guam Military Buildup is a “done deal.”
Fact: The Military Buildup is NOT a “done deal," as the Pacific Daily News would have us believe. There are many variables that need to take place in order for it to happen.
The buildup depends on what Japan decides to do. The U.S. is relying on Japan building an additional base on Okinawa in order for the troops to transfer from there to Guam. They are also depending on Japan to kick in $6 billion to help fund the buildup. However, Japan doesn’t want to build another base and it has been questioning the exorbitant expenses of the buildup, such as $775,000 per housing unit. Japan could make a decision that significantly delays the buildup, or even prevents it entirely.
Especially since the economic downturn, the Pentagon, too, has been uncertain about the expenses of the buildup (see this article from as recently as May 2009: "Pentagon Reconsiders Pricey Guam Move" at http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0509/050709cdam1.htm )
The powerful Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative, rightwing think tank, has been behind this buildup from the start, and has been steadily lobbying Congress to spend the billions of dollars it will take to make it happen. The Heritage Foundation takes the “Manifest Destiny” view of America, that it must rule the world, rather than share the world. And yet, in December 2009, a Pew Research Center study showed that almost half of Americans think that their country should “mind its own business internationally.” No doubt, these people would be opposed to the idea that $15 billion in their tax dollars is going to the Guam buildup, devoted to the military domination of another hemisphere. If these people were even aware of the buildup, let alone if they knew where Guam was, they would object to their Congressional representatives’ greenlighting the buildup. So far, less than $1 billion has been appropriated for the colossal project. There is no guarantee that the remaining $14 billion plus will come through.
So, it isn't a "done deal" after all. It is a future that can be shaped by the strategy and foresight of the people, starting at the grassroots.
III. WATER
Myth: There will be no problem supplying water to 80,000 new people on Guam. All we need to do is drill 22 more wells.
Fact: False. Twenty-two new wells will deplete our freshwater source. If there were enough water for that many more people, the DEIS would not have listed a desalination plant as a long-term solution. Desalination plants have adverse effects on the environment; and building one would make the people of Guam dependent on the military for the most basic resource for life – water.
If there were enough water to go around, the military would not consider the development of Tolaeyuus River (“Lost River”) in Santa Rita, either, to augment the water supply during the dry season. This would entail dredging the reservoir area of the existing dam, and installing a pump station and pipeline. Another scheme listed in the EIS is a comprehensive dredging of Fena Lake to increase capacity. Dredging equals more environmental devastation.
The DEIS makes no guarantee of water for the estimated 260,000-plus people to be on the island. So when you run short of water, as too many of us already do in Agat, Santa Rita, Piti and Asan, just remember the old Navy saying: "The needs of the Navy come first".
IV. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONFLICTS
Myth: People living on the base and civilians will live together harmoniously, as “one.”
Fact: The buildup will create three distinct classes: 1) the military, who will be given expensive homes and good salaries; 2) the local people, who will be marginalized as second-class citizens and 3) 40,000 “temporary workers” who will be housed in barracks.
Billions of dollars are slated to be poured into construction inside the fence, while THERE ARE NO PLANS TO SPEND ANY MONEY OUTSIDE THE FENCE, except for road construction (not maintenance). There will be no money to help the current systems deal with infrastructure inadequacies or the expected rise in crime.
The difference between “inside the fence” and “outside the fence” will be more evident within our education system than it already is. There is already a big difference between the quality of education between the DODEA schools for the military kids and that of local public schools. Now, the DEIS tells us to expect a 20% increase in enrollment in the civilian public schools. With no supplemental funding to enable the public schools to absorb this huge influx of students brought by the military buildup, the disparity in education between civilian and DODEA schools will resemble the segregated schools of the Old South. The shameful separate-but-equal ethic is already alive and well on Guam, and will thrive further if the military buildup is allowed to take place.
Medical care and other social services will share similar problems. While military personnel on-island will receive better funded care, the thousands of additional people will overwhelm Guam’s already stressed medical and social services.
Meanwhile, who will monitor and enforce the labor laws governing the island’s temporary workers, most of whom will be from the Philippines and the Federated States of Micronesia? There is already a problem regarding huge human-rights and labor abuse on Guam. Human-rights violations will most likely get worse, without adequate monitoring or enforcement. In addition, the idea that these workers are really “temporary” is a myth. Studies show that the vast majority of workers who migrate to the states from the Philippines, even on temporary visas, stay, and create families. Do not expect a population reduction after the buildup.
V. CRIME INCREASE
The huge surge of young single males, both Marines and laborers, along with the disparity between haves and have-nots, will lead to an increase in crime, fights, alcoholism, rape and prostitution. According to the DEIS, the buildup will also cause an increase in drug smuggling, due to the increased flow of goods and legal and illegal immigrants into Guam. Currently, the drug methamphetamine is already readily available on Guam, due to a steady supply from the Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, and South Korea.
VI. STRESSED SOCIAL SERVICES
As pointed out by University of Guam Professor of Social Work ,Dr. Gerhard Schwab, social services cannot keep up with current demands. He says that currently, “children in private and public child welfare organizations experience neglect and abuse… hard-working families do not have the health care and family support they need to care for their elderly and sick family members … our best local social service professionals leave Guam because of poor working conditions and/or lack of support and resources for their work.” And that is the way things are now.
If the buildup is allowed to go forward, troubles will get worse. The workload will double, while no money or resources are being appropriated to deal with these gigantic, foreseeable problem social problems.
Peter Sgro, president of the Guam Healthcare Development Foundation, says 500-600 additional doctors, nurses, technical, management and administration professionals will be needed on Guam, should the buildup take place. Where will they come from? Guam’s civilian hospital already has the lowest patient-to-bed ratio of anywhere in the U.S. and no funding in sight. Meanwhile, $259 million was appropriated in December 2009 to build a brand new Navy hospital – open only to military personnel and their dependents. The injustice of this neo-Apartheid system will be made all the more evident by the small size of the island, which will force the haves and have-nots to live uneasily side-by-side.
VII. CROWDING
Bottom line: More people, less land. Get ready for a road system that will be a constant traffic jam of construction trucks.The military is eyeing an additional 3,900 acres to take. That’s about one and a half times the size of Barrigada. This would include the FAA property, which was supposed to have been given back.
Regarding population increase: at first, the DOD told residents that the buildup would increase the population by 40,000, though they were always aware that the figure was really 80,000 -- double that! Unfortunately, no one told the people of Guam until the last possible moment – the day the EIS was released (November 20, 2009). Why did they wait so long? Maybe because they knew how upsetting this information would be.
Currently, the cap on H-2B temporary workers allowed to enter the country is only 66,000 for the entire United States. But on tiny Guam, that cap for such workers has been lifted. Instead of protecting the island from a surge of migrants, the government is encouraging a dangerous population spike. Clearly, no consideration was given to living conditions, resources or infrastructure on Guam. All that is considered important to project planners is to get the military facilities up and running – no matter what are the human, social or environmental costs.
VIII. RACIST ATTITUDES
According to the Draft EIS, the transplanted Marines will not have an impact on Guam's overall crime and social order. Instead the report blames migrants from the Federated States of Micronesia as the likely cause. This blatantly racist mindset behind the planning of Guam’s future is deplorable and goes against everything America stands for.
And racism will continue to flourish as the buildup’s planned social stratification takes hold, with predominantly Caucasian military personnel living in the most comfort inside the fence, while Pacific Islanders live outside the fence in lesser conditions, or outright squalor. It is tragically ironic that people native to the region are the ones to be relegated to the worst housing, the worst education system, the worst medical facilities, and the lowest wages. As 80,000 new people are dumped on Guam to fall into their preordained caste in this new “planned community” of Apartheid, the Buildup will exponentially accelerate the denigration of Pacific Islanders in their own land.
IX. NO MORE GREEN SPACE
Most of the four- and two- lane roads in the north will be widened to six- and seven-land highways. The greenery in the north will be removed, not just for road work, but to house many of the 80,000 new people. One hundred acres of jungle will be replaced by a camp for tens of thousands of low-wage laborers. More jungle will be razed to make way for the luxury military homes. These homes will be soundproofed to protect those inside from the noise of the new landing pad. Local homes just outside the gate will not have such sound protection.
X. NOISE
Aside from the harrowing noise of helicopters coming and going, the racket of weapons firing from the firing range will plague much of the island. A 2000 study from Asahikawa Medical College shows that aircraft-noise exposure resulted in a range of physical and mental consequences including sleep disorders, hearing loss, higher rates of low birth weight infants, fatigue, neurosis, and negative effects on children.
XI. NO MORE ACCESS TO NATURE
According to the impact study, “There are several recreational resources that the public would lose the access to, and the use of the features if the proposed action were implemented: Guam International Raceway, Marbo Cave, Pagat Trail and associated trails near it, cultural gathering activities (suruhana), and off-shore fishing near Marbo Cave.”
The DEIS spends chapters detailing their plans for creating "recreation space" for their dependents. They go on about how important it is to make sure that there is lots of "wide, open, green space" within their neighborhoods. In the mean time, they are taking away OUR recreation space. They are lessening the wide, open, green space in OUR neighborhoods. And what does the DEIS say to try to make things better? It actually says we should replace our outdoor culture with indoor physical fitness centers, and indoor recreational resources such as bowling, skating rink, youth center, theater and recreational pavilion. Do they really think that bowling is an acceptable substitute for traditional fishing practices? Can they really be that culturally insensitive? And even if people wanted to go bowling instead of fishing, what makes them think local people would be able to afford such diversions, as the cost of living skyrockets against their low wages?
XII. STRESSED INFRASTRUCTURE
As 80,000 newcomers create waste and stress on our utilities and roads, the local people must cope with the burdened electrical system, continual road maintenance, limited water supply and thousands of tons of additional sewage. As mentioned earlier, funding for the Guam Buildup does not include any financial support for infrastructure outside the fence.
XIII. DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SITES
The DEIS states that cultural heritage sites to be destroyed or compromised include locations at Apra Harbor, Anderson AFB, Orote Field, Anderson South, and a sizable portion of land south of Route 15. As described in the report, a parcel of land at Anderson Air Force Base that is rich in archaelogical artifacts will be subject to “100-percent disturbance.” In addition, it warns of increased vandalism at the historical coastal site of Haputo, rich with latte stones.
XIV. THE DESTRUCTION OF PAGAT
The limestone forest that stretches from Marbo Caves to Pagat Caves is being considered for use as a firing range, where the military can practice shooting and bombing. The land belongs to several families who have been caring for it for decades, choosing to not develop because they prize the land for its inherent values. Their efforts to keep the land pristine have made it more desirable for the military. The site in Pagat is registered at the Department of Historic Preservation as an archaeological site.
XV. THE DESECRATION OF MOUNT JUMULLONG MANGLO
This holy mountain, where thousands of island residents pilgrimage every year on Good Friday, is also being considered for use as a firing range. This is disrespectful of local Chamorro traditions.
XVI. DESTRUCTION OF REEF AND FISHING IN APRA HARBOR
Amount of reef to be dredged: 2.3 MILLION SQUARE FEET. That’s the equivalent of 40 football fields! That’s to make way for the berthing of a nuclear aircraft carrier, the largest ship in the Navy’s fleet, carrying 85 aircraft. It will bring 5600 additional people to Guam, ported 63 days a year. Having it will be terrific for local tattoo parlors; disastrous for nature. The sediment churned up by the dredging will kill the coral that is not plowed up and the fish population. According to Manny Duenas, president of the Fisherman’s Co-op, the dredging will “affect Guam in itself because we know the fish don’t just live in one area.” Brent Tibbatts, fisheries biologist at the Guam Department of Agriculture, explains that “there have been things found in Apra Harbor that have been found growing nowhere else in Guam.” One of those things are 6-foot brilliant blue elephant ear sponges that stand out among the common mounds of yellow, brown and green coral. It is rare for a busy port to be teeming with marine life like Apra Harbor, Tibbatts said. Most of the ports of the Pacific have barren sea bottoms, not lively ecosystems.
Many of the organisms in Apra Harbor will be buried during the dredging, according to the Draft EIS. Some will survive and seek new homes elsewhere in weeks or months, the document states. Other colonies of fish that are attached to their territory -- like damselfish, clownfish and butterfly fish -- will die. The draft EIS also states that ship traffic and dredging will create "short-term" disruption in the birthing area for scalloped hammerhead sharks. The sharks give birth directly in the carriers' path into the wharf, the draft EIS states. Although the adult hammerheads spread to waters around the island, Apra Harbor is the only place they consistently return to give birth.
If the dredging lasts more than a year, it could easily disturb two breeding cycles for the sharks, Tibbatts said. Since they only give birth to a few babies a year, local populations will be affected. "It would not be easy for them to replenish the population if something impacts their ability to pup," he said.
XVII. LARGEST MANGROVE FOREST ON U.S. SOIL DESTROYED
The dredging at Apra Harbor will destroy the mangrove forest there.
XVIII. SEA TURTLE AND SPINNER DOLPHIN HABITAT DESTROYED
The green sea turtle, the Hawksbill sea turtle and the Spinner dolphin, all protected by federal law, will be wiped out in Apra Harbor. We are trading endangered species and their ecosystems for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
XIX. REMOVAL OF DUKDUK TREES; DECIMATION OF IFIT TREES
The ifit tree is the official tree of Guam, traditionally used as timber, for fuel wood and craftsman art. The termite-resistant hardwood has completely disappeared from some parts of southeast Asia already and is increasingly harder to find on Guam. Construction eyed for Finegayan at Andersen South, and a firing range would decimate the critically-endangered ifit trees, says the DEIS. The construction would also require the removal of dukduk trees, a traditional resource used by canoe builders.
XX. DESTRUCTION OF NATIVE MEDICINAL PLANTS
The hundreds of acres of jungle to be destroyed or contaminated contains native plants used in traditional medicine. To destroy these plants is to destroy Guam’s Chamorro heritage.
XXI. HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE
The total amount of hazardous waste produced by the increased military presence will equal 8 tons per year! (according to the DEIS). The DEIS refuses to disclose all of the toxic and hazardous materials they will be storing; this is most likely because they are radioactive and banned from the shores of most countries. Our island is still in the process of decontaminating land and removing toxic materials left behind by the military; and many older generations of Guamanians suffer from an abnormally high cancer rate resulting from previous exposure to radiation by the military.
XXII. DEPLETION OF REEF RESOURCES BY H-2 WORKERS
What little reef resources are left may be quickly depleted by the underpaid foreign workers who tend to comb the reefs for food.
XXIII. WILL AFFECT THE ENTIRE MARIANA ARCHIPELAGO
The Guam Buildup does not affect only Guam. It will have grave, irreversible consequences for the entire island chain. The military does not see the Mariana Islands as a biodiverse treasure of natural wonders that the U.S. has even designated a protected Marine National Monument (“protected” from everyone except the military). Rather, the military sees our islands as a gigantic shooting gallery, which they’ve aptly re-named the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC). Don’t they know that regular people live here—people who have been caretakers of the culture and environment for millennia? But that is not their priority. As far as they’re concerned, Guam will be where the soldiers will live; the MIRC will be their enormous playground where they will learn how to destroy life. The DEIS even describes the Mariana Islands as “deficient,” for lacking enough live-fire ranges. In other words, the military sees our archipelago home as useless unless it can be bombed.
The MIRC area will encompass about 501,873 square nautical miles to include open ocean, coastal areas, surface and underwater. The combined land area on Guam, Rota, Tinian, Saipan, and Farallon de Medinilla to be used for training areas and facilities will be about 64 nautical miles, and approximately 63,000 nautical miles of airspace will be designated as Special Use Airspace. Surface and underwater areas, according to the study, will “extend from the waters south of Guam to north of Pagan and from the Pacific Ocean east of the Marianas Islands to the middle of the Philippine Sea to the west.”
Already bombing practice occurs routinely on Farallon de Medinilla, an island not long ago prized by locals for its excellent fishing. Now it is off-limits and contaminated, worsening by the day. Stopping the Guam Buildup will “cut off the head of the snake” that would otherwise kill or severely diminish the celebrated reef and land ecologies of the rest of the archipelago. According to the Population Reference Bureau, only 30% of Guam’s natural habitat remains. But that sad statistic is not shared by the rest of the islands in the chain, still plentiful in biological diversity.
Tinian
The spectacularly beautiful and ecologically rich island of Tinian would be hardest hit, if we let this happen. Tinian is home to many endemic species, including the Tinian Monarch, an endemic bird. The DEIS explains that the military intends to use two-thirds of the island to routinely conduct many hazardous activities, including live-fire training (which leaves behind depleted uranium and other highly toxic materials), various pyrotechnics and detonations both on land and underwater, and amphibious landings (heavy, lumbering tanks crushing the thriving reef as well as destroying the sea-turtle nesting areas on the beach). As the DEIS explains, Tinian is “capable of supporting Marine Expeditionary Unit aviation events such as ground element training and air element training, simulated evacuations of noncombatants, airfield seizure training, expeditionary airfield training, and special warfare activities.”
No species will be left undamaged. These activities will decimate one of the healthiest and most biologically diverse marine ecosystems on the planet, thus also destroying an important food source for its Pacific Island inhabitants.
Tinian groundwater endangered
The DEIS also warns that “groundwater aquifers on Tinian are also vulnerable to contamination by substances introduced onto the soil surface because the thin soils and underlying permeable limestone does not significantly impede the passage of contaminants to the shallow aquifer.” We can only imagine what heavy metals and other carcinogenic and hazardous materials will be seeping into the groundwater as military war games are routinely conducted all over the island.
In addition to the destruction caused by bombs, tanks, planes, ships and nuclear and hazardous wastes, the islands will also suffer from opportunists “cashing in” on the sudden inflow of a large demographic of single males looking for “rest and relaxation.” As on Guam, we can safely predict a rise in prostitution, illegal drugs, and crime. On Rota – pristine and undeveloped; an authentic “tropical paradise” -- the construction of two hotel-casinos are in the works, in anticipation of the Guam Buildup becoming a reality.
As you can see from these facts presented in the military’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Guam Buildup is a recipe for nothing short of social and ecological disaster. Please do what you can to stop it. Here is an interesting observation from blogger Dave Owen (http://www.guamblog.com/):
“The Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) wasn’t written to protect Guam. It was written to protect the U.S. government from criticism once things go wrong on Guam. The U.S. will say that the 11,000 page DEIS is evidence of its great concern and care for Guam. It’s just the opposite. It’s a pile of data and observation dumped on the island far too late, and Guam has been given precious little time – just 90 days – to respond to it. The buildup, as the DEIS illustrates, impacts every aspect of the island; the environment, land use and development, schools, health care, crime, roads -- the sum of Guam’s quality of life. With the DEIS in hand, Guam’s government must now prioritize the buildup’s impact and then prepare mitigation strategies. It’s a Manhattan Project-sized task and one that’s impossible to complete in the amount of time available. Guam can rest assured that the U.S. will use the DEIS as its defense when things go wrong: We prepared you, Guam.”
by Koohan Paik
THE MILITARY BUILDUP IN THE MARIANA ISLANDS
Guam, a possession of the United States, is one of 15 islands in the Marianas, an archipelago in the western Pacific so pristine and rich in biodiversity that it was recently designated a federally protected Marine National Monument. However, military activities are exempt from this so-called “protection” and the Department of Defense has plans to effectively destroy the natural habitats of these islands with the “Guam Military Buildup,”slated to take place over the next five years. Guam, an island only half the size of Cape Cod with a current population of 178,000, will soon become home to 80,000 additional Marines, dependents and laborers. The military already owns a third of the island, and the Marines aren't the only unit expanding. The Army, as well, is building a missile defense system; the Air Force is adding more drones; and the Navy is tearing out 2.3 million square feet of a healthy reef ecosystem to make way to house a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Though the people of these islands are being told that the Buildup will improve their quality of life, the facts show otherwise. Below is a handout being distributed among the people of Guam and the Marianas to shed light on the reality of how the Buildup will impact their islands.
The Military Buildup being planned for Guam and the rest of the Mariana Islands chain is being sold to us as a once-in-a-lifetime economic opportunity. But if you read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) put out by the Department of Defense, it quickly becomes clear that this is far from the truth. And if you know your Pacific history, it is a simple connection of dots to see that the Buildup will likely be as cataclysmic for our people and environment as the atomic testing at Bikini was for the Marshall Islands. Below are a collection of facts taken from the Draft Environmental Statement released November 20, 2009:
I. ECONOMY
Myth: The military buildup will be great for Guam’s economy.
Fact: The military’s DEIS document states that very little money will go into Guam’s economy. According to the report, most contracts will go to large off-island companies, not to local contractors. Most money spent by the 80,000 newcomers will be spent on base, at companies also based on-island, not at local businesses. The 40,000 low-paid workers imported from the Philippines will not spend their money on Guam, but will send most of it back home.
And don’t think that Guam residents will benefit from an increase in construction jobs. According to the DEIS, at the projected 2014 peak in such jobs, only 2,566 will go to Guam residents, while 15,157 will be taken by off-island workers.
In addition, the military conducted a separate report which revealed that the cost of living will rise, but wages will remain low too low to keep up with skyrocketing costs. Guam Housing Urban Renewal Authority Executive Director, Benny Pinaula, does not feel the buildup will help keep housing affordable.
How will GovGuam fare during the buildup? The costs to the Government of Guam associated with the buildup will be $2.9 Billion dollars. But GovGuam officials are uncertain as to how those projects will be paid for.
Guam Senator and local industrialist Eddie Calvo explained that the buildup will cost millions of dollars to maintain roads, to upgrade wastewater treatment and by taking revenue from the port. Calvo recently wrote that the $50 million appropriated for roads within the 2010 Defense Budget is “a drop in the bucket to what is required to expand the roads and harden bridges to handle the thousands of containers and workers that will be arriving on island.”
Calvo also pointed out that EPA has ordered the local government to spend nearly $300 million dollars to develop secondary wastewater treatment facilities. Though the military will ultimately be end-users of the northern facilities, it appears that the local government will bear the brunt of the upfront costs, resulting from EPA’s edict.
According to Calvo, it has been discovered that commercial cargo has been shipping out of the Navy side of the harbor. If this trend is a prediction of things to come, this may cost the local government millions of dollars in lost revenue in the future.
To sum things up, the military build up will NOT help local Guam businesses, will NOT provide a boon in construction jobs, will NOT be an economic boost for local Guam residents, and will cost Guam's government millions of dollars. The fact that the DEIS was written by big defense contractors in Hawaii, not Guam, indicates where the money will go, and it is not to you and me.
II. NOT A “DONE DEAL”
Myth: The Guam Military Buildup is a “done deal.”
Fact: The Military Buildup is NOT a “done deal," as the Pacific Daily News would have us believe. There are many variables that need to take place in order for it to happen.
The buildup depends on what Japan decides to do. The U.S. is relying on Japan building an additional base on Okinawa in order for the troops to transfer from there to Guam. They are also depending on Japan to kick in $6 billion to help fund the buildup. However, Japan doesn’t want to build another base and it has been questioning the exorbitant expenses of the buildup, such as $775,000 per housing unit. Japan could make a decision that significantly delays the buildup, or even prevents it entirely.
Especially since the economic downturn, the Pentagon, too, has been uncertain about the expenses of the buildup (see this article from as recently as May 2009: "Pentagon Reconsiders Pricey Guam Move" at http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0509/050709cdam1.htm )
The powerful Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative, rightwing think tank, has been behind this buildup from the start, and has been steadily lobbying Congress to spend the billions of dollars it will take to make it happen. The Heritage Foundation takes the “Manifest Destiny” view of America, that it must rule the world, rather than share the world. And yet, in December 2009, a Pew Research Center study showed that almost half of Americans think that their country should “mind its own business internationally.” No doubt, these people would be opposed to the idea that $15 billion in their tax dollars is going to the Guam buildup, devoted to the military domination of another hemisphere. If these people were even aware of the buildup, let alone if they knew where Guam was, they would object to their Congressional representatives’ greenlighting the buildup. So far, less than $1 billion has been appropriated for the colossal project. There is no guarantee that the remaining $14 billion plus will come through.
So, it isn't a "done deal" after all. It is a future that can be shaped by the strategy and foresight of the people, starting at the grassroots.
III. WATER
Myth: There will be no problem supplying water to 80,000 new people on Guam. All we need to do is drill 22 more wells.
Fact: False. Twenty-two new wells will deplete our freshwater source. If there were enough water for that many more people, the DEIS would not have listed a desalination plant as a long-term solution. Desalination plants have adverse effects on the environment; and building one would make the people of Guam dependent on the military for the most basic resource for life – water.
If there were enough water to go around, the military would not consider the development of Tolaeyuus River (“Lost River”) in Santa Rita, either, to augment the water supply during the dry season. This would entail dredging the reservoir area of the existing dam, and installing a pump station and pipeline. Another scheme listed in the EIS is a comprehensive dredging of Fena Lake to increase capacity. Dredging equals more environmental devastation.
The DEIS makes no guarantee of water for the estimated 260,000-plus people to be on the island. So when you run short of water, as too many of us already do in Agat, Santa Rita, Piti and Asan, just remember the old Navy saying: "The needs of the Navy come first".
IV. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONFLICTS
Myth: People living on the base and civilians will live together harmoniously, as “one.”
Fact: The buildup will create three distinct classes: 1) the military, who will be given expensive homes and good salaries; 2) the local people, who will be marginalized as second-class citizens and 3) 40,000 “temporary workers” who will be housed in barracks.
Billions of dollars are slated to be poured into construction inside the fence, while THERE ARE NO PLANS TO SPEND ANY MONEY OUTSIDE THE FENCE, except for road construction (not maintenance). There will be no money to help the current systems deal with infrastructure inadequacies or the expected rise in crime.
The difference between “inside the fence” and “outside the fence” will be more evident within our education system than it already is. There is already a big difference between the quality of education between the DODEA schools for the military kids and that of local public schools. Now, the DEIS tells us to expect a 20% increase in enrollment in the civilian public schools. With no supplemental funding to enable the public schools to absorb this huge influx of students brought by the military buildup, the disparity in education between civilian and DODEA schools will resemble the segregated schools of the Old South. The shameful separate-but-equal ethic is already alive and well on Guam, and will thrive further if the military buildup is allowed to take place.
Medical care and other social services will share similar problems. While military personnel on-island will receive better funded care, the thousands of additional people will overwhelm Guam’s already stressed medical and social services.
Meanwhile, who will monitor and enforce the labor laws governing the island’s temporary workers, most of whom will be from the Philippines and the Federated States of Micronesia? There is already a problem regarding huge human-rights and labor abuse on Guam. Human-rights violations will most likely get worse, without adequate monitoring or enforcement. In addition, the idea that these workers are really “temporary” is a myth. Studies show that the vast majority of workers who migrate to the states from the Philippines, even on temporary visas, stay, and create families. Do not expect a population reduction after the buildup.
V. CRIME INCREASE
The huge surge of young single males, both Marines and laborers, along with the disparity between haves and have-nots, will lead to an increase in crime, fights, alcoholism, rape and prostitution. According to the DEIS, the buildup will also cause an increase in drug smuggling, due to the increased flow of goods and legal and illegal immigrants into Guam. Currently, the drug methamphetamine is already readily available on Guam, due to a steady supply from the Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, and South Korea.
VI. STRESSED SOCIAL SERVICES
As pointed out by University of Guam Professor of Social Work ,Dr. Gerhard Schwab, social services cannot keep up with current demands. He says that currently, “children in private and public child welfare organizations experience neglect and abuse… hard-working families do not have the health care and family support they need to care for their elderly and sick family members … our best local social service professionals leave Guam because of poor working conditions and/or lack of support and resources for their work.” And that is the way things are now.
If the buildup is allowed to go forward, troubles will get worse. The workload will double, while no money or resources are being appropriated to deal with these gigantic, foreseeable problem social problems.
Peter Sgro, president of the Guam Healthcare Development Foundation, says 500-600 additional doctors, nurses, technical, management and administration professionals will be needed on Guam, should the buildup take place. Where will they come from? Guam’s civilian hospital already has the lowest patient-to-bed ratio of anywhere in the U.S. and no funding in sight. Meanwhile, $259 million was appropriated in December 2009 to build a brand new Navy hospital – open only to military personnel and their dependents. The injustice of this neo-Apartheid system will be made all the more evident by the small size of the island, which will force the haves and have-nots to live uneasily side-by-side.
VII. CROWDING
Bottom line: More people, less land. Get ready for a road system that will be a constant traffic jam of construction trucks.The military is eyeing an additional 3,900 acres to take. That’s about one and a half times the size of Barrigada. This would include the FAA property, which was supposed to have been given back.
Regarding population increase: at first, the DOD told residents that the buildup would increase the population by 40,000, though they were always aware that the figure was really 80,000 -- double that! Unfortunately, no one told the people of Guam until the last possible moment – the day the EIS was released (November 20, 2009). Why did they wait so long? Maybe because they knew how upsetting this information would be.
Currently, the cap on H-2B temporary workers allowed to enter the country is only 66,000 for the entire United States. But on tiny Guam, that cap for such workers has been lifted. Instead of protecting the island from a surge of migrants, the government is encouraging a dangerous population spike. Clearly, no consideration was given to living conditions, resources or infrastructure on Guam. All that is considered important to project planners is to get the military facilities up and running – no matter what are the human, social or environmental costs.
VIII. RACIST ATTITUDES
According to the Draft EIS, the transplanted Marines will not have an impact on Guam's overall crime and social order. Instead the report blames migrants from the Federated States of Micronesia as the likely cause. This blatantly racist mindset behind the planning of Guam’s future is deplorable and goes against everything America stands for.
And racism will continue to flourish as the buildup’s planned social stratification takes hold, with predominantly Caucasian military personnel living in the most comfort inside the fence, while Pacific Islanders live outside the fence in lesser conditions, or outright squalor. It is tragically ironic that people native to the region are the ones to be relegated to the worst housing, the worst education system, the worst medical facilities, and the lowest wages. As 80,000 new people are dumped on Guam to fall into their preordained caste in this new “planned community” of Apartheid, the Buildup will exponentially accelerate the denigration of Pacific Islanders in their own land.
IX. NO MORE GREEN SPACE
Most of the four- and two- lane roads in the north will be widened to six- and seven-land highways. The greenery in the north will be removed, not just for road work, but to house many of the 80,000 new people. One hundred acres of jungle will be replaced by a camp for tens of thousands of low-wage laborers. More jungle will be razed to make way for the luxury military homes. These homes will be soundproofed to protect those inside from the noise of the new landing pad. Local homes just outside the gate will not have such sound protection.
X. NOISE
Aside from the harrowing noise of helicopters coming and going, the racket of weapons firing from the firing range will plague much of the island. A 2000 study from Asahikawa Medical College shows that aircraft-noise exposure resulted in a range of physical and mental consequences including sleep disorders, hearing loss, higher rates of low birth weight infants, fatigue, neurosis, and negative effects on children.
XI. NO MORE ACCESS TO NATURE
According to the impact study, “There are several recreational resources that the public would lose the access to, and the use of the features if the proposed action were implemented: Guam International Raceway, Marbo Cave, Pagat Trail and associated trails near it, cultural gathering activities (suruhana), and off-shore fishing near Marbo Cave.”
The DEIS spends chapters detailing their plans for creating "recreation space" for their dependents. They go on about how important it is to make sure that there is lots of "wide, open, green space" within their neighborhoods. In the mean time, they are taking away OUR recreation space. They are lessening the wide, open, green space in OUR neighborhoods. And what does the DEIS say to try to make things better? It actually says we should replace our outdoor culture with indoor physical fitness centers, and indoor recreational resources such as bowling, skating rink, youth center, theater and recreational pavilion. Do they really think that bowling is an acceptable substitute for traditional fishing practices? Can they really be that culturally insensitive? And even if people wanted to go bowling instead of fishing, what makes them think local people would be able to afford such diversions, as the cost of living skyrockets against their low wages?
XII. STRESSED INFRASTRUCTURE
As 80,000 newcomers create waste and stress on our utilities and roads, the local people must cope with the burdened electrical system, continual road maintenance, limited water supply and thousands of tons of additional sewage. As mentioned earlier, funding for the Guam Buildup does not include any financial support for infrastructure outside the fence.
XIII. DESTRUCTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SITES
The DEIS states that cultural heritage sites to be destroyed or compromised include locations at Apra Harbor, Anderson AFB, Orote Field, Anderson South, and a sizable portion of land south of Route 15. As described in the report, a parcel of land at Anderson Air Force Base that is rich in archaelogical artifacts will be subject to “100-percent disturbance.” In addition, it warns of increased vandalism at the historical coastal site of Haputo, rich with latte stones.
XIV. THE DESTRUCTION OF PAGAT
The limestone forest that stretches from Marbo Caves to Pagat Caves is being considered for use as a firing range, where the military can practice shooting and bombing. The land belongs to several families who have been caring for it for decades, choosing to not develop because they prize the land for its inherent values. Their efforts to keep the land pristine have made it more desirable for the military. The site in Pagat is registered at the Department of Historic Preservation as an archaeological site.
XV. THE DESECRATION OF MOUNT JUMULLONG MANGLO
This holy mountain, where thousands of island residents pilgrimage every year on Good Friday, is also being considered for use as a firing range. This is disrespectful of local Chamorro traditions.
XVI. DESTRUCTION OF REEF AND FISHING IN APRA HARBOR
Amount of reef to be dredged: 2.3 MILLION SQUARE FEET. That’s the equivalent of 40 football fields! That’s to make way for the berthing of a nuclear aircraft carrier, the largest ship in the Navy’s fleet, carrying 85 aircraft. It will bring 5600 additional people to Guam, ported 63 days a year. Having it will be terrific for local tattoo parlors; disastrous for nature. The sediment churned up by the dredging will kill the coral that is not plowed up and the fish population. According to Manny Duenas, president of the Fisherman’s Co-op, the dredging will “affect Guam in itself because we know the fish don’t just live in one area.” Brent Tibbatts, fisheries biologist at the Guam Department of Agriculture, explains that “there have been things found in Apra Harbor that have been found growing nowhere else in Guam.” One of those things are 6-foot brilliant blue elephant ear sponges that stand out among the common mounds of yellow, brown and green coral. It is rare for a busy port to be teeming with marine life like Apra Harbor, Tibbatts said. Most of the ports of the Pacific have barren sea bottoms, not lively ecosystems.
Many of the organisms in Apra Harbor will be buried during the dredging, according to the Draft EIS. Some will survive and seek new homes elsewhere in weeks or months, the document states. Other colonies of fish that are attached to their territory -- like damselfish, clownfish and butterfly fish -- will die. The draft EIS also states that ship traffic and dredging will create "short-term" disruption in the birthing area for scalloped hammerhead sharks. The sharks give birth directly in the carriers' path into the wharf, the draft EIS states. Although the adult hammerheads spread to waters around the island, Apra Harbor is the only place they consistently return to give birth.
If the dredging lasts more than a year, it could easily disturb two breeding cycles for the sharks, Tibbatts said. Since they only give birth to a few babies a year, local populations will be affected. "It would not be easy for them to replenish the population if something impacts their ability to pup," he said.
XVII. LARGEST MANGROVE FOREST ON U.S. SOIL DESTROYED
The dredging at Apra Harbor will destroy the mangrove forest there.
XVIII. SEA TURTLE AND SPINNER DOLPHIN HABITAT DESTROYED
The green sea turtle, the Hawksbill sea turtle and the Spinner dolphin, all protected by federal law, will be wiped out in Apra Harbor. We are trading endangered species and their ecosystems for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
XIX. REMOVAL OF DUKDUK TREES; DECIMATION OF IFIT TREES
The ifit tree is the official tree of Guam, traditionally used as timber, for fuel wood and craftsman art. The termite-resistant hardwood has completely disappeared from some parts of southeast Asia already and is increasingly harder to find on Guam. Construction eyed for Finegayan at Andersen South, and a firing range would decimate the critically-endangered ifit trees, says the DEIS. The construction would also require the removal of dukduk trees, a traditional resource used by canoe builders.
XX. DESTRUCTION OF NATIVE MEDICINAL PLANTS
The hundreds of acres of jungle to be destroyed or contaminated contains native plants used in traditional medicine. To destroy these plants is to destroy Guam’s Chamorro heritage.
XXI. HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE
The total amount of hazardous waste produced by the increased military presence will equal 8 tons per year! (according to the DEIS). The DEIS refuses to disclose all of the toxic and hazardous materials they will be storing; this is most likely because they are radioactive and banned from the shores of most countries. Our island is still in the process of decontaminating land and removing toxic materials left behind by the military; and many older generations of Guamanians suffer from an abnormally high cancer rate resulting from previous exposure to radiation by the military.
XXII. DEPLETION OF REEF RESOURCES BY H-2 WORKERS
What little reef resources are left may be quickly depleted by the underpaid foreign workers who tend to comb the reefs for food.
XXIII. WILL AFFECT THE ENTIRE MARIANA ARCHIPELAGO
The Guam Buildup does not affect only Guam. It will have grave, irreversible consequences for the entire island chain. The military does not see the Mariana Islands as a biodiverse treasure of natural wonders that the U.S. has even designated a protected Marine National Monument (“protected” from everyone except the military). Rather, the military sees our islands as a gigantic shooting gallery, which they’ve aptly re-named the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC). Don’t they know that regular people live here—people who have been caretakers of the culture and environment for millennia? But that is not their priority. As far as they’re concerned, Guam will be where the soldiers will live; the MIRC will be their enormous playground where they will learn how to destroy life. The DEIS even describes the Mariana Islands as “deficient,” for lacking enough live-fire ranges. In other words, the military sees our archipelago home as useless unless it can be bombed.
The MIRC area will encompass about 501,873 square nautical miles to include open ocean, coastal areas, surface and underwater. The combined land area on Guam, Rota, Tinian, Saipan, and Farallon de Medinilla to be used for training areas and facilities will be about 64 nautical miles, and approximately 63,000 nautical miles of airspace will be designated as Special Use Airspace. Surface and underwater areas, according to the study, will “extend from the waters south of Guam to north of Pagan and from the Pacific Ocean east of the Marianas Islands to the middle of the Philippine Sea to the west.”
Already bombing practice occurs routinely on Farallon de Medinilla, an island not long ago prized by locals for its excellent fishing. Now it is off-limits and contaminated, worsening by the day. Stopping the Guam Buildup will “cut off the head of the snake” that would otherwise kill or severely diminish the celebrated reef and land ecologies of the rest of the archipelago. According to the Population Reference Bureau, only 30% of Guam’s natural habitat remains. But that sad statistic is not shared by the rest of the islands in the chain, still plentiful in biological diversity.
Tinian
The spectacularly beautiful and ecologically rich island of Tinian would be hardest hit, if we let this happen. Tinian is home to many endemic species, including the Tinian Monarch, an endemic bird. The DEIS explains that the military intends to use two-thirds of the island to routinely conduct many hazardous activities, including live-fire training (which leaves behind depleted uranium and other highly toxic materials), various pyrotechnics and detonations both on land and underwater, and amphibious landings (heavy, lumbering tanks crushing the thriving reef as well as destroying the sea-turtle nesting areas on the beach). As the DEIS explains, Tinian is “capable of supporting Marine Expeditionary Unit aviation events such as ground element training and air element training, simulated evacuations of noncombatants, airfield seizure training, expeditionary airfield training, and special warfare activities.”
No species will be left undamaged. These activities will decimate one of the healthiest and most biologically diverse marine ecosystems on the planet, thus also destroying an important food source for its Pacific Island inhabitants.
Tinian groundwater endangered
The DEIS also warns that “groundwater aquifers on Tinian are also vulnerable to contamination by substances introduced onto the soil surface because the thin soils and underlying permeable limestone does not significantly impede the passage of contaminants to the shallow aquifer.” We can only imagine what heavy metals and other carcinogenic and hazardous materials will be seeping into the groundwater as military war games are routinely conducted all over the island.
In addition to the destruction caused by bombs, tanks, planes, ships and nuclear and hazardous wastes, the islands will also suffer from opportunists “cashing in” on the sudden inflow of a large demographic of single males looking for “rest and relaxation.” As on Guam, we can safely predict a rise in prostitution, illegal drugs, and crime. On Rota – pristine and undeveloped; an authentic “tropical paradise” -- the construction of two hotel-casinos are in the works, in anticipation of the Guam Buildup becoming a reality.
As you can see from these facts presented in the military’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Guam Buildup is a recipe for nothing short of social and ecological disaster. Please do what you can to stop it. Here is an interesting observation from blogger Dave Owen (http://www.guamblog.com/):
“The Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) wasn’t written to protect Guam. It was written to protect the U.S. government from criticism once things go wrong on Guam. The U.S. will say that the 11,000 page DEIS is evidence of its great concern and care for Guam. It’s just the opposite. It’s a pile of data and observation dumped on the island far too late, and Guam has been given precious little time – just 90 days – to respond to it. The buildup, as the DEIS illustrates, impacts every aspect of the island; the environment, land use and development, schools, health care, crime, roads -- the sum of Guam’s quality of life. With the DEIS in hand, Guam’s government must now prioritize the buildup’s impact and then prepare mitigation strategies. It’s a Manhattan Project-sized task and one that’s impossible to complete in the amount of time available. Guam can rest assured that the U.S. will use the DEIS as its defense when things go wrong: We prepared you, Guam.”
02 January 2010
USVI Governor Forwards Draft Constitution to US
Source: The Government House Blog
Posted by Jean Greaux on December 31, 2009 at 2:10 PM AST
Governor deJongh sent the following a letter to President Obama regarding the Constitution adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention last May and submitted to the Governor for transmittal to the President of the United States.
December 31, 2009
Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500
RE: Proposed Constitution of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands
Dear Mr. President:
First, I extend Holiday Greetings to you on behalf of the people of the United States Virgin Islands, and best wishes for the New Year.
I write to you today with respect to a matter of importance to the political development of the United States Virgin Islands.
On June 1, 2009, a proposed draft Constitution for the Virgin Islands was forwarded to me by the Fifth Constitutional Convention that had been established by federal law, Public Law 94-584, and local law, Act No. 6688. The most general and generous reading of this draft Constitution showed it to be inconsistent with basic tenets of equal protection and fairness as established by the United States Constitution. As such it was unacceptable to me on both legal and moral grounds.
Further review at that time also suggested that I, as Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, had no duty to forward this proposed draft to you in furtherance of the process set forth in Public Law 94-584 if the proposed draft did not "...recognize, and be consistent with, the sovereignty of the United States over the Virgin Islands... and the supremacy of the provisions of the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States applicable to the Virgin Islands..., including, but not limited to, those provisions of the Organic Act and Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands" as required by subsection (b)(I) of that law. Accordingly, and for those reasons, I announced to the people of the Virgin Islands that r (sic) would not forward it. A copy of the Public Statement I made on June 11, 2009 is enclosed with this letter.
Despite my concerns, certain officials of the Fifth Constitutional Convention filed suit in court to require me to do so. Without reaching the constitutional issues presented in the matter a Virgin Islands judge has now concluded that my "...only duty with respect to the proposed Constitution was to submit it..." to you. Rather than further delay this process with more litigation here in the Territory focused on process and not substance, I am forwarding the document for your review. Ultimately Congress, in the exercise of its Constitutional duty to administer the territories, and in conformity with Public Law 94-584, will decide both the fate of this document and how we in the Virgin Islands are to move ahead towards our goal of increased local governmental autonomy. I stand ready to assist you and the Congress in working towards this goal.
I thank you for your care and attention to this matter which is of considerable importance to the political development of the United States Virgin Islands, just as I thank you for all you are doing to restore the American Dream to all Americans.
Sincerely,
John P. deJongh, Jr.
Governor
Posted by Jean Greaux on December 31, 2009 at 2:10 PM AST
Governor deJongh sent the following a letter to President Obama regarding the Constitution adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention last May and submitted to the Governor for transmittal to the President of the United States.
December 31, 2009
Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500
RE: Proposed Constitution of the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the United States Virgin Islands
Dear Mr. President:
First, I extend Holiday Greetings to you on behalf of the people of the United States Virgin Islands, and best wishes for the New Year.
I write to you today with respect to a matter of importance to the political development of the United States Virgin Islands.
On June 1, 2009, a proposed draft Constitution for the Virgin Islands was forwarded to me by the Fifth Constitutional Convention that had been established by federal law, Public Law 94-584, and local law, Act No. 6688. The most general and generous reading of this draft Constitution showed it to be inconsistent with basic tenets of equal protection and fairness as established by the United States Constitution. As such it was unacceptable to me on both legal and moral grounds.
Further review at that time also suggested that I, as Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, had no duty to forward this proposed draft to you in furtherance of the process set forth in Public Law 94-584 if the proposed draft did not "...recognize, and be consistent with, the sovereignty of the United States over the Virgin Islands... and the supremacy of the provisions of the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States applicable to the Virgin Islands..., including, but not limited to, those provisions of the Organic Act and Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands" as required by subsection (b)(I) of that law. Accordingly, and for those reasons, I announced to the people of the Virgin Islands that r (sic) would not forward it. A copy of the Public Statement I made on June 11, 2009 is enclosed with this letter.
Despite my concerns, certain officials of the Fifth Constitutional Convention filed suit in court to require me to do so. Without reaching the constitutional issues presented in the matter a Virgin Islands judge has now concluded that my "...only duty with respect to the proposed Constitution was to submit it..." to you. Rather than further delay this process with more litigation here in the Territory focused on process and not substance, I am forwarding the document for your review. Ultimately Congress, in the exercise of its Constitutional duty to administer the territories, and in conformity with Public Law 94-584, will decide both the fate of this document and how we in the Virgin Islands are to move ahead towards our goal of increased local governmental autonomy. I stand ready to assist you and the Congress in working towards this goal.
I thank you for your care and attention to this matter which is of considerable importance to the political development of the United States Virgin Islands, just as I thank you for all you are doing to restore the American Dream to all Americans.
Sincerely,
John P. deJongh, Jr.
Governor
28 December 2009
Court Clears Way for US Review of Draft Virgin Islands Constitution
A long-awaited judicial ruling by US Virgin Islands Superior Court Judge Darryl Donohue has opened the way for the resumption of a political process which could lead to the adoption of the first constitution for the US Virgin Islands, one of two US administered dependencies in the Caribbean. The territory is governed pursuant to the Revised Organic Act of 1954 written by the US Congress, rather than a constitution written by the people of the dependency, and is one of sixteen remaining territories worldwide recognised by the United Nations as non self-governing.
This is the fifth attempt by the US Virgin Islands to complete the process of drafting and ratifying a territorial constitution based on the present status. In retrospect, the many attempts at constitutional advancement may have more to say about the efficacy of the present dependency status rather than the commitment of the people to have a constitution, since any enhancements of the status quo must fit within limitations of colonial dependency which vary from territory to territory.
Legal Issues
The legal case on this phase of the constitutional process was filed in the Superior Court of the territory in June, 2009 by Fifth Constitutional Convention President Luz James and Convention Secretary Mary Moorhead questioning whether elected Governor John de Jongh had the authority to hold back the draft constitution from transmission to US President Barak Obama for consideration, as required by the US and territorial laws governing the constitutional process (an earlier ruling of the court had required the two Convention officials to file the case in their personal capacities rather than as Convention officials).
The Governor had decided last June not to submit the draft document to Washington after a legal analysis by territorial Attorney General Vincent Frazer contending that elements of the draft violated certain provisions of the US Constitution, including the equal protection of US citizens (there is no Virgin Islands citizenship to be protected, as no such citizenship exists in the Revised Organic Act). A number of members of the Convention have countered that the provisions in question were consistent with those in constitutions of other US-administered territories in the Caribbean and Pacific where the people of the territories do not have full political rights as other US citizens, and thus have unique provisions in their constitutions to compensate for the democratic deficiencies. The court case was not based on the constitutionality of any provisions, but rather was restricted to the procedural question of whether the law provided a role for the governor other than to submit the document to Washington. The ruling made it clear that no such authority existed, as reflected in the conclusion of the court ruling:
“III. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Respondent (Governor) has a specific non-discretionary duty required by both (US) Pub.L. No. 94-584 and (Virgin Islands) Act No. 6688 to forward the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States. Respondent's failure to forward the proposed Constitution constitutes a violation of Pub. L. No. 94-584 and Act No. 6688. Within the confines of the language of both statutes, Respondent's duty entails only submitting the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States. The statutes authorize nothing more and nothing less. There is no authority for Respondent to amend, modify, revise, withhold, or take any other action regarding the proposed Constitution beyond his enumerated duty. Consequently, it was not within Respondent's power to take contrary action by not forwarding the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States. Accordingly, mandamus relief is appropriate and Respondent shall be ordered to proceed with his duty pursuant to Pub. L. No. 94-584 and Act No. 6688 and forward the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States within ten (10) business days.”
Budgetary Shortfall
The 30 – member Fifth Constitutional Convention had begun its work in 2007 but suffered from the start because of insufficient resources. The budget of the Convention was never fully funded, and it had to rely on ad hoc appropriations resulting in operational delays and periods of dormancy when there were insufficient funds to convene its public meetings. Several requests to the US Government for financial assistance to the Convention to fill the budgetary gap were denied, leaving the Convention with a significant budgetary shortfall to fully carry out its work. In apparent anticipation of a favourable court decision, the President of the Convention, in testimony before the Fourth Committee of the United Nations (UN) last October, reported on the financial condition of the constitutional process, and requested UN assistance for the upcoming educational programme on the constitution after the document is returned to the people from Washington. The UN has routinely provided such assistance to non self-governing territories in their constitutional advancement process, and it is too early to determine whether the world body would assist the US Virgin Islands in this manner.
The Next Stages
With the court ruling, an in-depth substantive analysis of the draft document will now be undertaken by the US administration, as originally intended, rather than short-circuited at the territorial level. If the territorial government appeals the decision to the Virgin Islands Supreme Court, further delays could be expected. The longer the delays, however, the more likely the constitutional discussions in the territory could take place in the middle of the electoral campaign in 2010 – not an unfavourable outcome for those who seek more substance in the campaign debates, but perhaps an unintended consequence for those who prefer that these issues remain outside of the campaign debate. In any case, the timing could invariably result in the rare opportunity for substantive constitutional and political status issues to be injected into the political campaign.
A number of experts have argued that the constitutionality of the draft Virgin Islands constitution is best examined by the US, rather than by the territory – since it is the US constitution which governs the process, rather than a territorial law, and it is the US Government which is in the best position to determine whether something is consistent or not with its constitution. Any territorial interruption of how US law applies could be well off the mark since the US has the power under the present political status to unilaterally decide which parts of the US Constitution – as well as US laws - apply to the territories, and which do not. Thus, who best to explain this peculiarly inconsistent dependency status than the government which created it, and which has administers it in the case of the US Virgin Islands for over 90 years, and in the case of Puerto Rico and Guam for over one hundred years?
Legal and political scholars are awaiting the contemporary US analysis of the draft Virgin Islands constitution which should be undertaken at some point in 2010. Among the US government agencies which would provide views on the proposed constitutional provisions, the US Justice Department should be the most intriguing I its analysis, as it would provide an assessment on levels of autonomy possible – and not possible - under the unincorporated territory status as it is defined in 2010. The Justice Department assessment of the present commonwealth/territorial status of Puerto Rico essentially served to redefine the limitations of the prevailing dependency status, and an assessment of that department of the draft constitution of the Virgin Islands could also shed similar light on what is deemed possible under the present territorial status. The last time such an analysis was undertaken by the US government was in conjunction with the draft constitution adopted by the Fourth Constitutional Convention in 1980, so a new assessment after thirty years would be useful at the very least.
Conclusion
The clarity which could be brought by a US analysis of the draft constitution could be most revealing, specifically as it relates to the parametres of the territorial status ten years into the 21st century, and at the end of the decade when such colonial arrangements – even as sophisticated as they have become - were supposed to be a thing of the past. Have the parametres of territorial status been expanded sufficiently to accommodate some of the provisions in the draft as adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention, as some are hoping? Or do the continual constraints of the dependency political status provide insufficient political space to accommodate what the delegates to the Convention have agreed are necessary adjustments in the political development of the territory?
The anticipated US Congressional hearings on the draft constitution for the US Virgin Islands sometime in 2010 should be most interesting since these questions should be answered. If certain provisions contained in the constitutional draft are outside the parametres of the present territorial status, then the option of choosing a new status which would accommodate new powers and autonomy would have to be seriously considered, sooner rather than later. In any case, the unincorporated territorial status was never meant to be permanent and is an anachronistic relic of an era long past. It was always meant to be an interim stage to a status of political equality, and should have been long relegated to the annals of history, to be replaced by a status of full political equality consistent with international law. The ruling of the Virgin Islands Superior Court permits the process of assessment, public education and political advancement to move ahead, if by only a step.
This is the fifth attempt by the US Virgin Islands to complete the process of drafting and ratifying a territorial constitution based on the present status. In retrospect, the many attempts at constitutional advancement may have more to say about the efficacy of the present dependency status rather than the commitment of the people to have a constitution, since any enhancements of the status quo must fit within limitations of colonial dependency which vary from territory to territory.
Legal Issues
The legal case on this phase of the constitutional process was filed in the Superior Court of the territory in June, 2009 by Fifth Constitutional Convention President Luz James and Convention Secretary Mary Moorhead questioning whether elected Governor John de Jongh had the authority to hold back the draft constitution from transmission to US President Barak Obama for consideration, as required by the US and territorial laws governing the constitutional process (an earlier ruling of the court had required the two Convention officials to file the case in their personal capacities rather than as Convention officials).
The Governor had decided last June not to submit the draft document to Washington after a legal analysis by territorial Attorney General Vincent Frazer contending that elements of the draft violated certain provisions of the US Constitution, including the equal protection of US citizens (there is no Virgin Islands citizenship to be protected, as no such citizenship exists in the Revised Organic Act). A number of members of the Convention have countered that the provisions in question were consistent with those in constitutions of other US-administered territories in the Caribbean and Pacific where the people of the territories do not have full political rights as other US citizens, and thus have unique provisions in their constitutions to compensate for the democratic deficiencies. The court case was not based on the constitutionality of any provisions, but rather was restricted to the procedural question of whether the law provided a role for the governor other than to submit the document to Washington. The ruling made it clear that no such authority existed, as reflected in the conclusion of the court ruling:
“III. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Respondent (Governor) has a specific non-discretionary duty required by both (US) Pub.L. No. 94-584 and (Virgin Islands) Act No. 6688 to forward the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States. Respondent's failure to forward the proposed Constitution constitutes a violation of Pub. L. No. 94-584 and Act No. 6688. Within the confines of the language of both statutes, Respondent's duty entails only submitting the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States. The statutes authorize nothing more and nothing less. There is no authority for Respondent to amend, modify, revise, withhold, or take any other action regarding the proposed Constitution beyond his enumerated duty. Consequently, it was not within Respondent's power to take contrary action by not forwarding the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States. Accordingly, mandamus relief is appropriate and Respondent shall be ordered to proceed with his duty pursuant to Pub. L. No. 94-584 and Act No. 6688 and forward the proposed Constitution to the President of the United States within ten (10) business days.”
Budgetary Shortfall
The 30 – member Fifth Constitutional Convention had begun its work in 2007 but suffered from the start because of insufficient resources. The budget of the Convention was never fully funded, and it had to rely on ad hoc appropriations resulting in operational delays and periods of dormancy when there were insufficient funds to convene its public meetings. Several requests to the US Government for financial assistance to the Convention to fill the budgetary gap were denied, leaving the Convention with a significant budgetary shortfall to fully carry out its work. In apparent anticipation of a favourable court decision, the President of the Convention, in testimony before the Fourth Committee of the United Nations (UN) last October, reported on the financial condition of the constitutional process, and requested UN assistance for the upcoming educational programme on the constitution after the document is returned to the people from Washington. The UN has routinely provided such assistance to non self-governing territories in their constitutional advancement process, and it is too early to determine whether the world body would assist the US Virgin Islands in this manner.
The Next Stages
With the court ruling, an in-depth substantive analysis of the draft document will now be undertaken by the US administration, as originally intended, rather than short-circuited at the territorial level. If the territorial government appeals the decision to the Virgin Islands Supreme Court, further delays could be expected. The longer the delays, however, the more likely the constitutional discussions in the territory could take place in the middle of the electoral campaign in 2010 – not an unfavourable outcome for those who seek more substance in the campaign debates, but perhaps an unintended consequence for those who prefer that these issues remain outside of the campaign debate. In any case, the timing could invariably result in the rare opportunity for substantive constitutional and political status issues to be injected into the political campaign.
A number of experts have argued that the constitutionality of the draft Virgin Islands constitution is best examined by the US, rather than by the territory – since it is the US constitution which governs the process, rather than a territorial law, and it is the US Government which is in the best position to determine whether something is consistent or not with its constitution. Any territorial interruption of how US law applies could be well off the mark since the US has the power under the present political status to unilaterally decide which parts of the US Constitution – as well as US laws - apply to the territories, and which do not. Thus, who best to explain this peculiarly inconsistent dependency status than the government which created it, and which has administers it in the case of the US Virgin Islands for over 90 years, and in the case of Puerto Rico and Guam for over one hundred years?
Legal and political scholars are awaiting the contemporary US analysis of the draft Virgin Islands constitution which should be undertaken at some point in 2010. Among the US government agencies which would provide views on the proposed constitutional provisions, the US Justice Department should be the most intriguing I its analysis, as it would provide an assessment on levels of autonomy possible – and not possible - under the unincorporated territory status as it is defined in 2010. The Justice Department assessment of the present commonwealth/territorial status of Puerto Rico essentially served to redefine the limitations of the prevailing dependency status, and an assessment of that department of the draft constitution of the Virgin Islands could also shed similar light on what is deemed possible under the present territorial status. The last time such an analysis was undertaken by the US government was in conjunction with the draft constitution adopted by the Fourth Constitutional Convention in 1980, so a new assessment after thirty years would be useful at the very least.
Conclusion
The clarity which could be brought by a US analysis of the draft constitution could be most revealing, specifically as it relates to the parametres of the territorial status ten years into the 21st century, and at the end of the decade when such colonial arrangements – even as sophisticated as they have become - were supposed to be a thing of the past. Have the parametres of territorial status been expanded sufficiently to accommodate some of the provisions in the draft as adopted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention, as some are hoping? Or do the continual constraints of the dependency political status provide insufficient political space to accommodate what the delegates to the Convention have agreed are necessary adjustments in the political development of the territory?
The anticipated US Congressional hearings on the draft constitution for the US Virgin Islands sometime in 2010 should be most interesting since these questions should be answered. If certain provisions contained in the constitutional draft are outside the parametres of the present territorial status, then the option of choosing a new status which would accommodate new powers and autonomy would have to be seriously considered, sooner rather than later. In any case, the unincorporated territorial status was never meant to be permanent and is an anachronistic relic of an era long past. It was always meant to be an interim stage to a status of political equality, and should have been long relegated to the annals of history, to be replaced by a status of full political equality consistent with international law. The ruling of the Virgin Islands Superior Court permits the process of assessment, public education and political advancement to move ahead, if by only a step.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)