15 May 2015

Tokelau Explores MOU with Samoa to strengthen resilience against Natural disasters



Government of Tokelau meetings last week with Disaster Management Organisation (DMO) and Meteorological Office in Apia look to explore how it could share related experiences in strengthening resilient against natural disasters from the growing impact of climate change.

The objective of the meetings was exploring a memorandum of understanding between Samoa (MNRE/Met Office) and Tokelau on disaster management that will look into developing of early warnings, training and keeping people aware - provisions that are required for the management of natural disasters such as tsunamis, cyclones and droughts.

The meetings with head officers, Filomena Nelson and Ausetalia Lea Titimaea look at addressing disaster preparation issues like standard operating procedures, citizens responsibilities, supplies and equipments, recruitment and training of staff and public education and awareness.


go.hrw.com

Samoa’s Community Disaster and Climate Risk Management Programme (CDCRM) by Disaster Management Organisation (DMO) were carried out in Tokelau last year, facilitated by staff from DMO.

Daily weather reports services are currently being provided by Samoa’s Metrological Office in Apia.

Meanwhile, consultation with the Council of Elders (Taupulega) of Fakaofo on the Land and Coastal Management Project by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) will be carried out late April.

Consultation will access and gather the information required to implement the project.

Government of New Zealand lend use consultant, Dean Walker will be carrying out consultation with support from FAO’s, Forestry Management Advisor, Tevita Kelesoma and Economic Development Natural Resource and Environment Department, Environment Manager, Menny Tavuto.

The Land and Coastal Management Project was signed last year between FAO and Government of Tokelau and the implementation expected to be carried out in June.

On the 132nd Anniversary of Pioneering Black Radical Hubert Henry Harrison's Birthday





Black Agenda Report



Image result for hubert henry harrisonThe same folks who'd have us believe politics is just Republicans and Democrats, and that the current black political class is the culmination of black history have tried to erase the history of black giants like socialist Hubert Henry Harrison, whom historian Joel A. Rogers called “the foremost Afro-American intellect of his time.” and who was a mentor to Marcus Garvey.

On the 132nd Anniversary of Pioneering Black Radical Hubert Henry Harrison's Birth
by Jeffrey B. Perry
Hubert H. Harrison (1883-1927) is a true giant of Black, Caribbean, Diasporic African, and U.S. radical history. He was a brilliant writer, orator, educator, critic, and political activist who was described by the historian Joel A. Rogers, in World’s Great Men of Color, as “the foremost Afro-American intellect of his time” and by A. Philip Randolph as “the father of Harlem Radicalism.”
Harrison was born to an immigrant mother from Barbados and a formerly enslaved Crucian father on Estate Concordia in St. Croix, Danish West Indies (now U.S. Virgin Islands), on April 27, 1883. On St. Croix he lived amongst immigrant and native-born working people, learned customs rooted in African communal systems, and grew with an affinity for the poor and with the belief that he was equal to any other. He also learned of the Crucian people’s rich history of direct-action mass struggle including the 1848 enslaved-led emancipation victory; the 1878 island-wide “Great Fireburn” rebellion in which women played prominent roles; and the October 1879 general strike.
After arriving in New York as a seventeen-year-old orphan in 1900 Harrison made his mark over the next twenty-seven years by struggling against class and racial oppression and by helping to create a remarkably rich and vibrant intellectual life among those he affectionately referred to as “the common people.” He played unique, signal roles in the development of what were, up to that time, the largest class radical movement (socialism) and the largest race radical movement (the “New Negro Movement”/Garvey movement) in U.S. history. His ideas on the centrality of the struggle against white supremacy anticipated the profound transformative power of the Civil Rights/Black Liberation struggles of the 1960s. His talks before large crowds at Wall and Broad Streets (on Socialism) and in Harlem after the 1917 pogrom against the East St. Louis African-American community (East St. Louis is less than 12 miles from Ferguson) were precursors to recent “Occupy” and “Black Lives Matter” movements.
Harrison was the foremost Black organizer, agitator, and theoretician in the Socialist Party of New York during its 1912 heyday; he founded the first organization (the Liberty League) and the first newspaper (The Voice) of the militant, World War I-era “New Negro Movement”; editedThe New Negro: A Monthly Magazine of a Different Sort (“intended as an organ of the international consciousness of the darker races – especially of the Negro race”) in 1919; wroteWhen Africa Awakes: The “Inside Story” of the Stirrings and Strivings of the New Negro in the Western World in 1920; and he served as the editor of the Negro World and principal radical influence on the Garvey movement during its radical high point in 1920.
His views on race and class profoundly influenced a generation of “New Negro” militants including the class radical A. Philip Randolph and the race radical Marcus Garvey. Considered more race conscious than Randolph and more class conscious than Garvey, Harrison is a key link in the two great trends of the Black Liberation Movement – the labor and civil rights trend associated with Randolph and Martin Luther King, Jr., and the race and nationalist trend associated with Garvey and Malcolm X.
Harrison also was a pioneer Black activist in the freethought and birth control movements; reportedly developed "the first regular book-review section known to Negro newspaperdom"; and helped develop the 135th Street Public Library into what has become known as the internationally famous Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture.
People are encouraged to commemorate Hubert Harrison’s life and work and to share information on him with others.
For comments from scholars and activists on Hubert Harrison: The Voice of Harlem Radicalism, 1883-1918 and on A Hubert Harrison Reader see http://www.jeffreybperry.net/disc.htm
Additional information on Hubert Harrison the Voice of Harlem Radicalism, 1883-1918 can be found at:
An overview of Harrison’s life is available at BlackPast.org:
For a longer “Introduction” to Hubert Harrison in “Souls” seehttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/souls/vol2no1.html
For more information on Hubert Harrison see
For a video on Hubert Harrison from Boston Neighborhood Network TV
Clips from a Book TV, CSPAN-2 program on Harrison with Dr. Jeffrey B. Perry, Dr. Komozi Woodard and Dr. Mark Naison can be viewed at http://www.c-span.org/video/?283784-1/book-discussion-hubert-harrison
Jeffrey B. Perry is an independent, working class scholar who preserved and inventoried the Hubert H. Harrison Papers (now at Columbia University's Rare Book and Manuscript Library) and is the editor of A Hubert Harrison Reader (Wesleyan University Press, 2001) and author ofHubert Harrison: The Voice of Harlem Radicalism, 1883-1918 (Columbia University Press, 2008).He is currently working on volume two of the Hubert Harrison biography, editing Harrison’s writings for placement on Columbia University’s Rare Book and Manuscript Library webpage,and preparing a new edition of Harrison’s When Africa Awakes for Diasporic Africa Press.

14 May 2015

Okinawa rally set to oppose further U.S. Militarisation

Major rally against Henoko relocation to be held May 17

Major rally against Henoko relocation to be held May 17
Representatives of the group organizing the May 17 rally against the relocation of a Marine Corps base to Henoko speak about the importance of the upcoming event during a press conference on April 30 at Southern Plaza Kaiho in Naha. (Front row from left) Chokei Taira, Kiku Nakayama, Morimasa Goya, Susumu Inamine, and Norio Oshiro.

 Ryukyu Shimpo
A group of civic leaders opposing the relocation of U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Henoko in Nago announced at a press conference in Naha on April 30 that a major rally against the base construction will be held on May 17 at 1 p.m. at Okinawa Cellular Stadium in Naha. The organizers, who include members of the prefectural assembly, civic groups, and the business community, said they expect the event to draw at least 30,000 participants, revising their earlier estimate of around 10,000. Okinawa Governor Takeshi Onaga has expressed his intention to participate in the rally which will be held under the banner, “70 years after WWII – Stop the construction of a new base in Henoko.”
Prior to the press conference, the organizers established an action committee, which is composed of: Tatsuhiro Oshiro, a writer who has won the prestigious Akutagawa Prize; Kiku Nakayama, chairperson of the Shiraume Alumni Association of the Okinawa Daini Women’s High School; Susumu Inamine, mayor of Nago city; Morimasa Goya, chairman of Kanehide Group; Chokei Taira, CEO of Kariyushi Group; and Norio Oshiro, chairman of the trade union Rengo Okinawa.
The representatives will visit Tokyo on May 24-26 to deliver a resolution against the base construction to the Japanese prime minister’s residence and other offices. They are also considering accompanying the Okinawa governor on his planned trip to the United States, aiming to raise awareness among the American public of the military base issue in Okinawa.
The organizers have adopted blue as the rally’s theme color symbolizing the sea of Henoko and Oura Bay. They are calling on those who cannot participate in the rally to wear blue pieces of clothing or accessories to express their opposition to the base relocation to Henoko.
A leader of the action committee, Tatsuhiro Oshiro, was not able to attend the press conference due to his schedule. In a phone interview with the Ryukyu Shimpo, Oshiro said, “We are aware of the strength of the resolve against the Henoko relocation among residents of Okinawa Prefecture, but the depth of feeling is not fully understood in mainland Japan. Through the rally, we want to show the local residents’ strong resolve to keep fighting.”
(English translation by T&CT and Miwa Murphy)

13 May 2015

Hawai‘i Law Professor Provides Clarity of Dispute on Mauna Kea to Univ. of Hawaii Board of Regents




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



Testimony of Willamson B.C. Chang, Professor of Law 
Meeting of the University of Hawai‘i Board of Regents 
University of Hawai‘i at Hilo
April 16, 2015



Honorable Board of Regents:

I have had the honor and pleasure to serve as a Professor of Law at the University of Hawai’i for the last 39 years. I have served the University and the community well. I am also grateful for the opportunity to serve and work in the University.

Let me start by saying this: I know a place, I know a country where there would never be a question whether to build an eighteen-story thirty meter telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea. That country, that nation is “Hawai’i.”

Before 1893, it would have been unthinkable that the Government of the Kingdom of Hawai’i would ever conceive of such a plan. Yes, Kalakaua loved astronomy. All Hawaiians loved the stars. However, they loved Mauna Kea even more. Mauna Kea is “sacred” it is the Sky-Father it is the essence, the beginning of the creation chant of the Hawaiian people. All Hawaiians, all Islands, even Taro are descendants of Mauna Kea.


When I say “Mauna Kea” is sacred, I do not mean to use “sacred” the way most people use that term. I mean “sacred” not in the same sense of worship. I use “sacred” in the sense of “precious” and “so important that nothing else counts”—I apply it to those things and people that we care so much about that we would do anything, even flout and break the law, to preserve their existence.

The child of a parent, especially a young child is “sacred” in this sense. So are parents to their children. So are grandparents. Even the family pet is “sacred.” If your house was burning down would you risk your life to go into the burning house to rescue your children, your mother, your grandparents, even your beloved dog or cat? Would you go even if forbidden by first responders, firemen or policemen? Yes, many of us would go without hesitation–without thinking of the consequences. Would you give a kidney to save or extend the life of your child, your brother, your uncle? Would you spend all of your money to save a loved one from cancer? from Lou Gehrig’s disease or from a life in prison without parole? Yes, we all would.

Moreover, we praise such emotions and desires of others who make such sacrifices every day. We understand the soldier who sacrifices himself by instinctively jumping on a grenade. We understand the parent or grandparent who gives all their money to see their child or grandchild through college.

Whether one worships Mauna Kea or not, whether one considers it “sacred” does not matter as much as understanding the instincts that drive those to defend and save Mauna Kea—much as one would understand the absolute love for a child, or a parent even if such acts break the law.

When we see the instinct of family, of brotherhood, of sisterhood of love for mankind in others we celebrate that—we gravitate to that. We love and defend Mauna Kea because it reminds us what makes us human. Sacred is not necessarily a place. It is a relationship, a deep visceral relationship: beyond reason, beyond law, beyond rationality.

The Mauna Kea movement is a movement that has grown because of young people. They live in new confusing world themselves—a world of cognitive dissonance. That is they live within an outright contraction—a Hawaii in decline where there is nothing they can do. They see their world being attacked and destroyed, its water taken, its plants doused with foreign chemicals, its agricultural lands disappear in the name of gentlemen farmers, its open lands used for artillery practice, and its shoreline becoming high-end condominiums that only rich foreigners can afford.


Moreover, to the young, Hawaii is unlivable, there is no viable future: There are no places to rent, no jobs that fit their training, no money for retirement and the endless, life-sapping traffic congestion. And now an eighteen story telescope on Mauna Kea!


It would never be built on other sacred sites: not over the Western Wall, the Dome of the Rock, Angor Wat, Gettysburg, Arlington, or the Arizona Memorial? No one would think of putting a pair of glasses on the eyes of God. Why then, Mauna Kea? We, and our youth are inundated today with the attacks on the treasures of the earth and why?

So, what happened to this “nation” called Hawai‘i, where Mauna Kea was loved and adored? Hawai‘i was a nation, that by a series of events, starting with an overthrow in 1893 and ending with annexation in 1900, by which another nation, the United States, forcefully took the sovereignty of Hawai‘i.

What do I mean by that?—to take one nation’s sovereignty? Sovereignty is the monopoly of a government on the legitimate use of violence.

By that I mean the State, the police and DLNR are the only ones today who can do so-called “legal” violence to Mauna Kea. Similarly, the police of Hawai‘i County and the officers DLNR are the only ones who can use the violence of arrest and jail or fine to force down the protectors of Mauna Kea. Protect the mountain and you go to jail. It is legal. It is called law. It is a power possessed only by the sovereign of a nation. There once was a time in Hawaii when that monopoly on the use of legal power protected not defiled Mauna Kea.

In 1893 and 1900 a new Nation took over in Hawai‘i—a new nation with new rules. These were new rules that had the power to interfere with our very human, emotions and instincts, instincts derived over time from our kupuna, our ancestors and the culture of this nation of Hawai‘i. Hawai‘i has changed.

Today, government has the legitimate power to do violence to families as well. Government agencies can take a child away from a parent. Government agencies can put a Hawaiian in prison for the smallest of offenses—denying him or her freedom and the chance to be with and raise their families. The world of Hawai‘i has been turned upside down.

The answer lies in power, that is law—the shift over their lives by which all is reversed.

In 1898 the United States, by Joint Resolution took the nation of Hawai‘i. I am a legal historian. In the appendix attached I show my work—that concludes definitively that the joint resolution had no such power. It was impotent, it was an act of Congress not a treaty. It could no more take Hawai‘i by a law then Hawai‘i by a law could take America.

It was a fraud—it created a disease that spread, a malaise we all suffer—called the myth of annexation. We all believe we are part of America, we all act as if that were true. We have been taught that way. We follow the lead of others who act that way.

The truth is that the joint resolution did not give to the United States the monopoly on the use of legitimate violence—a violence to build on Mauna Kea, the violence to arrest those who seek to stop that building. Most of all the University claims Mauna Kea by lease—a lease derived from the Joint Resolution.

It is said that the Joint Resolution gave Mauna Kea to the United States, which gave it to the State, which gave it to the University. As a matter of law that is false. It is a lie. The University has no power over Mauna Kea. It cannot build, it cannot give permits, it cannot arrest us.

The mass of young people are here today in protest because we live in a world of cognitive dissonance. They live in a world where they are learning, at the University about the truth of the Joint Resolution, which gives no power, no sovereignty to the state. Outside of their classes they see the State taking what they love—preventing them from running into the burning house to save their Mauna Kea, their father, their sky-father.

And this dissonance makes them ill. It makes our youth sick. It is a crisis that creates mental illness. In short, to build on Mauna Kea is to cast a sickness throughout these islands, a sickness and sadness, not only on Native Hawaiians but on all people who live here.

I have included an appendix, taken from my work, which speaks to the myth of annexation and demonstrates that the Joint Resolution had no capacity to take the Nation of Hawai‘i. I will place this testimony and my appendix on my “Scholar Space” at Hamilton Library, the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, under my name. This is the link to that site.

Mahalo and Mahalo Ke Akua.

Williamson Chang

12 May 2015

Living Hawaii: The Jones Act Pays Off — in Politics

Civil Beat






The state’s delegation in Washington, D.C., enjoys outsized donations from maritime lobbyists, but several members told Civil Beat this doesn't affect their stances.
By ERIC PAPE 

People have argued over the impact of the Jones Act — a 95-year-old piece of protectionist maritime legislation — for many years.


Is it good or bad for the economy? National security? Or jobs? The answers often seem to depend on who you talk to and which data they cherry pick to make their points.

Remarkably, there has been no definitive, objective study on the Jones Act’s impact on prices in America’s most expensive state, as three of Hawaii’s representatives in Washington, D.C. — Sen. Brian Schatz and Reps. Tulsi Gabbard and Mark Takai — noted in recent interviews with Civil Beat.

So there is no way to know whether people in Hawaii pay a reasonable price for the Jones Act, or whether the state should ask Congress for permission to grant these remote islands an exemption from the law’s cost-boosting requirements for cargo transportation.

In at least one way, though, the Jones Act is a moneymaker. Supporting it is good business — for politicians.

READ THE FULL REPORT IN CIVIC BEAT




Critique on the Puerto Rican documentary "The Last Colony"

Compañeros Unidos para la Descolonización 

de Puerto Rico





Yo vi el documental, The Last Colony, sobre nuestra relación colonial con el gobierno de Estados Unidos. Yo felicito al director Juan Agustín Márquez por tomarse la iniciativa para sacar del closet nuestro colonialismo. Sin embargo, hay 2 temas muy importantes que no se tocaron. Yo creo que ambas están a la raíz de nuestra solución al problema.

Juan terminó su documental diciendo que, “La última palabra sobre nuestra descolonización la tiene el gobierno de Estados Unidos. Y hasta entonces, Puerto Rico continuará siendo la última colonia.” Juan después le pide a la audiencia que voten por su preferencia entre 4 alternativas de estatus político utilizando su teléfono inteligente.

No importa en esta etapa del proceso de descolonización lo que los puertorriqueños prefieren como su estatus político final. Esa conversación se tendrá después que el gobierno de Estados Unidos le estregue su soberanía a los puertorriqueños. El gobierno de Estados Unidos no quiere hacer eso. Y por eso es que el gobierno de Estados Unidos sigue insistiendo que los puertorriqueños tienen que ponerse de acuerdo para aparentar que está interesado en la descolonización de Puerto Rico. El gobierno sabe que mientras retenga la soberanía sobre Puerto Rico, los puertorriqueños nunca se pondrán de acuerdo sobre nada.

Eso, por supuesto, le favorece al gobierno de Estados Unidos porque podrá mantener su colonia para siempre. ¿Quién realmente cree que el gobierno de Estados Unidos está interesado en descolonizar a Puerto Rico después de 117 años de explotación? La mayoría de la gente desconoce que el gobierno de Estados Unidos la saca 14 veces más dinero de lo que invierte en Puerto Rico. ¡Eso también lo tenemos que sacar del closet!

Los puertorriqueños tienen su derecho a la auto-determinación e independencia según el derecho internacional. Por eso es que la Organización de Naciones Unidas (ONU) celebra todos los años una vista sobre la descolonización de Puerto Rico. Este año será el lunes 22 de junio de 2015, y se podrá ver el día siguiente en la página cibernética de la ONU (webcast).

Pocas gentes saben que en el 1960, la ONU determinó que el colonialismo es un crimen en contra de la humanidad, porque representa una amenaza a la paz mundial. Desde entonces, la ONU ha emitido 33 resoluciones pidiéndole al gobierno de Estados Unidos que descolonice inmediatamente a Puerto Rico.

Es importante señalar que la ONU nunca le ha pedido al gobierno de Estados Unidos que determine que estatus político prefieren los puertorriqueños. Nunca lo ha hecho, porque la ONU sabe que los puertorriqueños decidirán eso cuando se le entreguen su soberanía. Soberanía es la capacidad de un país decidir lo que quiere sin interferencia de otro país.

¿Cuál ha sido la repuesta del gobierno de Estados Unidos a las resoluciones de la ONU? ¡El gobierno de Estados Unidos ha ignorado la voluntad democrática de la comunidad internacional! Eso quiere decir que el gobierno de Estados Unidos se cree por encima de la ley internacional. Y esto me lleva al otro problema del documental sobre quien tiene la última palabra. Nosotros tenemos la última palabra sobre la última colonia del mundo. Me explico.

Vamos a suponer que mañana mismo todos nosotros protestamos en algún lugar en Estados Unidos pacíficamente y permanentemente por nuestro derecho a nuestra auto-determinación e independencia. El gobierno de Estados Unidos estaría obligado, obviamente arrastrando sus pies, a eventualmente descolonizar a Puerto Rico. Seguramente, necesitaremos un tsunami de gente para que eso ocurra.

La gran pregunta es, ¿queremos crear ese tsunami de gente, o seguir jugando el juego estadounidense dedividir y vencer que tan bien esta explicado en el libro, The COINTELPRO Papers? Necesitaremos sacar del closet nuestra verdadera historia para poder ver la solución sobre nuestro colonialismo. ¡La historia nosenseña que el gobierno de Estados Unidos nunca lo hará, porque los que mantienen colonias no creen en la justicia para todos!

Juan dijo que su propósito en hacer este documental fue poner hablar al gobierno de Estados Unidos con los puertorriqueños para descolonizar a Puerto Rico. Eso no resolvería el problema. Nuestra descolonización dependerá en nuestra habilitad de hablar entre nosotros mismo para exigir al gobierno de Estados Unidosnuestro derecho inalienable a la auto-determinación e independencia.


I saw the documentary The Last Colony about our colonial relationship with the United States government. I congratulate the Puerto Rican director Juan Agustín Márquez for taking the inactive to get Puerto Rico’s colonialism out of the closet. However, there were 2 very important issues totally excluded from this documentary. I believe they are at the core of the final resolution to our colonial political status.
Juan ends his documentary by saying that, “Ultimately, the United States government has the final word in Puerto Rico decolonization. Until that happens, Puerto Rico will continue to be the last colony.” He then asks viewers to vote for one of 4 political status option using their smart phones.

It doesn’t matter, at this particular stage of decolonization, what Puerto Ricans want as their final political status. That conversation will be had after the United States government gives Puerto Ricans their sovereignty. The US government does not want to do that. That’s why it pretends it is interested in Puerto Rico decolonization by insisting that Puerto Ricans decide first what they want. It does this, because it knows that we will never agree on anything, as long as the US government is in charge of the decolonization process.

That, of course, benefits the US government, because that allows it to keep Puerto Rico as its colony forever. Who really believes that the one that is totally responsible for Puerto Rico’s colonial relationship is interested in freeing her after 117 years of exploitation? Most people don’t know that the US government receives 14 times more money than it invests in Puerto Rico! That also needs to be taken out of the closet!

Puerto Ricans have the right to our self-determination and independence as a matter of international law. This is why the United Nations (UN) holds a hearing every year to discuss Puerto Rico decolonization. This year’s hearing will be on Monday, June 22, 2015.

Few people are aware that in 1960, the UN determined that colonialism is a crime against humanity, because it is a threat to world peace. Since then, it has issued 33 UN resolution asking the US government to immediately decolonize Puerto Rico. It is important to note that the UN has never asked the US government to determine what political options Puerto Ricans prefer. The UN hasn’t, because it knows that Puerto Ricans will decide that after the US governments gives them their sovereignty. Sovereignty is a country’s ability to govern herself without any outside intervention.

What has been the US government’s response to these UN resolutions? It has ignored the democratic will of the international community. That is to say that the US government feels that it is above international law! And this takes me to the other omission concerning who has the final word. We do! I’ll explain.
Suppose tomorrow, we all decide to peacefully protest somewhere in the United States for our right to self-determination. The United States government would, of course after dragging its feet, eventually comply with the 33 UN resolutions. We would undoubtedly need a tsunami of people in order to force the US government to do so.


So the question is, do we want to create this tsunami of people, or do we want to continue to play the US government’s game of divide and conquer that is so well explained in the book, The COINTELPRO Papers.

We must continue to takeout of the closet the real Puerto Rican History to make it possible for us to see the way out of our colonialism. US history has shown that the US government will never do that, because those who maintain colonies don’t believe in justice for all!

Juan said that his reason for making this documentary was to foster Puerto Rican decolonization by having the US government talk to the Puerto Rican people. That, however, will not solve the problem. Puerto Rico decolonization will depend on our ability to talk among ourselves in order to demand from the US government our inalienable right to self-determination and independence.

US Virgin Islands workers earn 26 percent below US average


Workers in the U.S. Virgin Islands had an average (mean) hourly wage of $16.81 in May 2014, about 26 percent below the United States average of $22.71, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Chief Regional Economist Martin Kohli noted that, after testing for statistical significance, wages in the local area were lower than their respective U.S. averages in 20 of the 22 major occupational groups, including life, physical, and social science; computer and mathematical; and sales and related.

When compared to the U.S. distribution, local employment was more highly concentrated in 8 of the 22 occupational groups, including office and administrative support, protective service, and building and grounds cleaning and maintenance. Conversely, 12 groups had employment shares significantly below their mainland representation, including production; healthcare practitioners and technical; and computer and mathematical.

READ THE FULL REPORT AT



11 May 2015

Poll finds overwhelming opposition in Okinawa to Futenma relocation plan; Activists appeal to the U.N.



The Japan Times

BY REIJI YOSHIDA
STAFF WRITER

Amid claim and counterclaim by activists and politicians over the planned relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station, one factor is often ignored: what ordinary Okinawans think about the move.

There was a testy exchange at a news conference Tuesday between Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga and a reporter from the Okinawa Times, one of the prefecture’s two largest newspapers.

The newspaper’s latest poll found that 76.1 percent of residents are opposed to “the construction of a new base” off Henoko in Nago as a replacement for the Futenma base.

The sample size was only 610 respondents, but it nevertheless points to a majority of Okinawans opposing the plan.

The poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, also showed an approval rating of 83 percent for Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga, who has pledged to use every available measure to block the plan to move the base to Henoko.

Suga insisted the move is still on track, saying local leaders elected by Okinawans and who were in power at the time gave the green light.

He ran through the history of the relocation plan. In 1999, he said, then-Gov. Keiichi Inamine and Nago Mayor Tateo Kishimoto agreed to moving Futenma to Henoko, and that the relocation plan drawn up by Tokyo reflects their agreement.

Suga also cited Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima as accepting the plan and agreeing in December 2013 to landfill work off Henoko. That work is now beginning.

“The (central) government listened to opinions of people who are said to represent Okinawan residents,” Suga said.

But if the Times poll is anything to go by, most Okinawans now disagree with their previous leaders’ decisions and want the base moved out of the prefecture altogether.

Onaga ousted Nakaima last November with an unambiguous campaign promise: to block the relocation.

Nago Mayor Susumu Inamine, a fellow opponent of relocation, was re-elected in January 2014, beating Bunshin Suematsu, a pro-base candidate who supported the Henoko plan.

Observers say it is difficult for Abe to make any compromise over the Henoko project before going to Washington later this month and meeting with President Barack Obama.

________________

Nago citizens appeal to UN to stop new US base construction

Nago citizens appeal to UN to stop new US base construction
At a press conference held at the Okinawa Prefectural Government’s correspondents club on March 26, Zenzi Nina, the head of the Teima district of Nago, announced that Nago residents had sent documents to the UN to oppose the new base construction.

 Ryukyu Shimpo

Zenzi Nina, the head of the Teima district of Nago, and Fujiko Matsuda, president of the Association of Residents of the Districts North of Futami Opposed to the Construction of a New Base at Henoko, Oura Bay, held a press conference at the correspondents club at the Okinawa Prefectural Government office on March 26. They announced that they have sent documents to three United Nations organizations opposing the relocation of U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Henoko, Nago.
The Nago citizens sent the documents to the Office for Disarmament Affairs, the Human Rights Council, and the Environment Programme. The documents state that the governments of Japan and the United States are ignoring Okinawan people’s opposition and forcing through building a new U.S. military base, which could lead to environmental destruction of local communities and ecosystems.
Nina said, “We originally thought the governments of Japan and the United States would give up the construction through negotiations. However, they will not. So, we have had no choice but to ask the UN to work on the issue.”

They said they have sent the documents, written in English, to the UN through fax, e-mail, and mail.

(English translation by T&CT)

10 May 2015

Nuclear testing legacy haunts Pacific Island countries

Logo




Eyes of Fire cover 425wide
The cover of the Eyes of Fire memorial edition in 2005. In July, it will be 30 years
 since the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. Cover image: John Miller


The Pacific will be virtually absent from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) review conference at the United Nations next week. Some regard this as an apparent sign of the overall decline of anti-nuclear advocacy in the region, which is seen as a worrying trend that needs to be arrested, writes Shailendra Singh.


Analysis – By Shailendra Singh


Prominent Pacific Island anti-nuclear campaigners want a revival of their once-robust movement to support the international effort against “nuclearism”.

Their call coincides with a major international meeting at the United Nations in New York – the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) from April 27 to May 22.

The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology while promoting co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

However, besides Palau, there were no Pacific island countries represented in the 148 States parties that participated in one or more of the annual preparatory meetings held in the lead up to the 2015 NPT.

This is despite the Pacific region’s immense contribution to the nuclear disarmament movement, as recorded by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). At the height of the U.S.-Soviet arms race, members of the South Pacific Forum signed and ratified the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (SPNFZ).

Moreover, Pacific governments have traditionally voted in favour of resolutions calling for a global treaty banning nuclear weapons at the UN and at various international disarmament summits.

This latest NPT review conference will consider ways to promote engagement with civil society in strengthening NPT norms and in promoting disarmament education. Yet, participation by Pacific Islands-based civil society organisations in the conference will be scant.

According to Emele Duituturaga, head of the Pacific Islands Association of Civil Society Organisations (PIANGO), none of their national liaison units are represented at the 2015 NPT. Neither is Duituturaga aware of any other NGOs that will represent the region at the conference.

Overall decline

The Pacific’s absence from a major event such as the NPT is another apparent sign of the overall decline of anti-nuclear advocacy in the region, which some see as a worrying trend that needs to be arrested.

Stanley Simpson, formerly assistant director of the now non-operational Fiji-based regional pressure group, Pacific Concerns Resource Centre, said that “nuclearism” was still a threat, even if it might appear dormant.

“The danger is not over,” insists Simpson. “We still live with the legacy of nuclear testing and activity.”

Nuclear testing in the Pacific began in 1946 and ended in 1996, with the former colonial powers – United States, Britain and France– collectively conducting more than 300 detonations in the region.

Nearly 70 years on, the continued refusal of the concerned powers to own up to their past transgressions and compensate victims deepens the sense of injustice felt in the region.

In February this year, the Fiji government pledged financial assistance to 24 surviving Fijian soldiers who were on Christmas Island (now Kiribati) during British nuclear tests in the late 1950s. Fijian Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama said: “We owe it to these men to help them now, not wait for the British politicians and bureaucrats. We need to erase this blight on our history.”

A recent article by the President of the Marshall Islands, Christopher J. Loeak, outlines the callous manner in which his country was treated by the United States. The article appeared in the 2014 publication, Banning Nuclear Weapons: A Pacific perspective, published by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

Loeak points out that besides the “Bravo” test, which was 1000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, 17 other tests
 in the Marshall Islands were in the megaton range. The total yield of the tests in the Marshalls comprised nearly 80 percent of the atmospheric total detonated by the United States.

Clean up order

French Polynesians were similarly treated by the French government, which conducted 193 atmospheric and underground nuclear tests at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls. The ICAN publication relates the case of a local Maohi (Polynesian) worker at the testing centre after an atmospheric test in September 1966 on Moruroa.

The worker was among those instructed to clean up all the debris that littered the roads. The worker stated that the supervisors told them: ‘It’s OK, you can go over there.’

According to David Robie, a journalism professor at AUT University’s Pacific Media Centre in Auckland, New Zealand, the Pacific anti-nuclear movement grew out of a sense of outrage that countries like Britain, France and the United States were using vulnerable Pacific island territories as pawns to carry out tests that they were not willing to carry out in their own backyard.

Dr Robie, who covered anti-nuclear issues as an independent jourmalist, authored a book in 1986, Eyes of Fire, about the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by French state terrorists in 1985.

“The arrogance of the North really upset a lot of people in the Pacific,” Dr Robie said. “Newly emerging countries like Vanuatu, led by the late Walter Lini (Prime Minister of Vanuatu) and political leaders like Oscar Temaru, then mayor of the Pape’ete suburb of Fa’aa, declared themselves ‘nuclear-free’ to make a statement of independence.”

After Pacific-wide protests forced a halt to French nuclear tests in 1996, the civil society groups at heart of the anti-nuclear movement either scaled down or closed their operations. Some turned their attention to what became regarded as immediate hazards, such as global warming.

Dr Robie states that while France was conducting nuclear tests in the Pacific, there was still a big “power ogre” to focus attention on. Once the end of these tests were achieved, other issues took precedence.

“In the 1980s, the buzzword was nuclear refugees. Now it is climate change refugees,” says Dr Robie.

Anti-nuclear frontline

The Fiji anti-Nuclear group (FANG), which was at the frontline of the anti-nuclear movement in the 1980s, is no longer active. The group opposed both French testing in Tahiti and the Fiji government’s policy on allowing nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships into the country.

The Suva-based Pacific Concerns Resource Center (PCRC), which acted as the secretariat for the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement, has since closed operations.

PIANGO’s Duituturaga states that with the closure of the PCRC, the nuclear issue “went off the radar”. Asked if the nuclear danger was over for the Pacific, Duituturaga replied: “No – of course not. Nuclear arms are destructive to all of us – whether or not we are directly involved.”

Dr Robie too believes that the Pacific remains exposed. Specific threats include the persistent radioactive contamination from 
the tests; the issue of newer fallout from the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan; and the China-US rivalry, especially with speculation about China’s eventual plans for Taiwan, which raises the spectre of nuclear conflict.

According to Simpson, it behoves the Pacific to be part of the disarmament movement.

“Nuclear testing is an emotional issue for Pacific Islanders. Pacific people can strengthen the movement’s heart and soul,” states Simpson.

Unfortunately, the Pacific presence is unlikely to be felt at the 2015 NPT, which will consider a number of crucial issues, such as nuclear disarmament, and the promotion and strengthening of safeguards.

******
Shailendra Singh is coordinator and senior lecturer in journalism at the School of Language, Arts and Media at the University of the South Pacific and a research associate of the Pacific Media Centre. This article was commissioned and first published by IDN-InDepthNews.

09 May 2015

No Democratization without Decolonization

Logo

Authored by: Dr. Francio Guadeloupe, Interim President/Dean of Academics, University of St. Martin (USM). Along with, Drs. Erwin Wolthuis, Division Head of department of Business & Hospitality (USM), and Drs. Sharelly Emanuelson, lecturer Department of General Liberal Arts, USM


PHILIPSBURG, Sint Maarten — In case you haven’t heard, there are university students protesting on the streets of Amsterdam. They are irate at what they consider the authoritarian and deceitful attitude of the board of directors of the University of Amsterdam! They claim that they are being told, “just shut up and accept what we say is good for you”.

francio_guadeloupe-001
Dr. Francio_Guadeloupe
Before forcefully being evicted by police officers on horses, students occupied university buildings to protest what they viewed as directors sacrificing their right to proper education at the expense of making profit; selling university buildings and cancelling certain studies based on economic calculations. All about and for the Euros! One of the battle cries of the students is “no real estate speculation with education money”.

The protesting students have been joined by brilliant minds and dedicated teachers—younger university staff—who more than likely will never get a permanent contract that will enable them to get a mortgage to buy a house and raise a proper family if they wish to do so. These university lecturers demand “sustainable career opportunities for all staff”. And, in an act of unprecedented solidarity, their well established colleagues with endowed chairs have joined the battle by championing more “democratization and decentralization of university governance”. A real revolution is taking place. A revolution for a more thorough democratization of Dutch society.
READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

07 May 2015

INDIGENOUS WORLD CRITIQUES FALTERING U.N. DECOLONISATION


United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Fourteenth Session
New York, 20 April-1 May 2015

 Intervention of the Indigenous World Association
On The Failure of the United Nations  System 
to Decolonize the Non-Self Governing Territories
and Violations of the Right to Self-Determination 

Agenda Item 4

Submitted By:

Indigenous World Association

April 21st. 2015 

Supported By:

Na Koa Ikaika KaLahui Hawaii; Kai ‘Ula Poni’I Hawaiian Civic Club Texas; Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice; Mahonga Mataitai O Ngati Hine; We are Guahan, Guam; National Association of Social Workers, Guam Chapter; GALA, Inc.,Guam; Our Islands are Sacred, Guam; Akali Tange Association, Papua New Guinea; Porgera Alliance, Papua New Guinea; The Koani Foundation; The Maori Womans Welfare League- Aotearoa.


I. Another Decade to Eradicate Colonialism!

On December 10, 2010 the United Nations passed Resolution 65/119 adopting the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. In doing so, the United Nations General Assembly once again affirmed its inability to eradicate colonialism and its failure to implement numerous recommendations from United Nations bodies including this Forum, for a concrete plan to implement the Right of Self Determination and delist the UN Non-Self Governing Territories. 

In 2008, the indigenous peoples of the Pacific and Caribbean filed a global intervention on the UN Decolonization process. It began by noting that in international law the word “sacred” is used only once. This is in relation to the “sacred trust obligation” which Administering States have to the “inhabitants of the (non-self-governing) territories” under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter. This “sacred obligation” is owed to millions of indigenous peoples who reside in the Pacific and Caribbean and who, under international law, are unable to realize their right to self-determination and self-governance, and they remain on the United Nations on the list of “non-self governing territories (NSGT)” pursuant to G.A. Resolution 66-1 of 1946. 

The Special Committee on Decolonization, which has oversight of the Decolonization process has been unable to implement its decolonization resolutions for the past 21 years and the U.N. System has ignored the directives given to it by UN Member states. A prime example is the refusal to implement the mandated political, education programs for the Territories, and its failure to respond to requests from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) for data relating to racism in the territories for 26 consecutive years. During this time, and continuing until the present, the UN General Assembly and its member states have declared not one, but three International Decades to eradicate colonialism with woefully insufficient response from the UN System according to independent analyses.

II. The Evolution of International Human Rights Standards for the Protection of Indigenous Peoples – The Special Situation of the Indigenous Peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.

There is a common misconception that international law relating to the human rights of indigenous peoples evolved because of the Cobo Report and ILO Conventions, and later, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is false. Long before the UN Human Rights Conventions were conceived and came into force, the United Nations had begun to address and examine the right of indigenous peoples residing in colonies, to self-determination.

There is a distinct body of international human rights law that deals with peoples and territories that are not self-governing. These indigenous peoples and their traditional lands, territories and resources, were subjected to imperialism and domination by foreign powers during the colonial period. They were denied the most fundamental of all human rights, the right of Self- Determination. This was justified by the Doctrine of Discovery.

In the early 1950’s the United Nations passed several resolutions referencing rights of indigenous peoples in the Non-self-governing Territories. These resolutions include:

1). G.A. Reso. 644 (VII), 10th December 1952, Racial Discrimination in the Non-Self-Governing Territories called upon administering states to abolish discriminatory laws in the territories and to examine any laws which were based on race or religion. Preambular paragraph three states:

 “Recognizing that there is a fundamental distinction between discriminatory laws and practices, on the one hand, and protective measures designed to safeguard the rights of the indigenous inhabitants, on the other hand.” This language makes clear that ‘special measures’ for indigenous peoples were needed to address past discrimination, and that such measures were not considered discriminatory.[see http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/079/87/IMG/NR007987.]

2). G.A. Reso. 752 (VIII) 9 December 1953, Attainment by the Trust Territories of the objective of self-government or independence requested the Trusteeship Council to commence reporting to the General Assembly on progress made in specific areas by administering states to further the goal of ‘self-government’… “in particular measures taken in respect of …. (d) the training and appointment of indigenous persons from each Trust Territory for positions of responsibility in the administration”. [see http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/086/17/IMG/NR008617]

3) G.A. Reso. 744 (VIII) 27 November 1953, Association of representatives from Non-Self-Governing Territories in the work of the Committee on Information from the Non-Self-Governing Territories in which the General Assembly ‘invited’ administering states to include in their delegations to the UN … “indigenous representatives specially qualified to speak on (economic, social and educational policies) these matters as they relate to the Territories”. This resolution underscored the importance of real “participatory democracy” in the decolonization process as the General Assembly itself wanted to insure indigenous direct participation in the work of the UN itself. [see http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/086/09/IMG/NR008609]

These and other early UN resolutions provided a framework for administering States to work with Indigenous Peoples to facilitate their ability to achieve self-governance through the exercise of Self Determination. 

From 2002 – 2005 the UNGA passed 19 resolutions directing that specific action be taken to implement decolonization in the territories – these actions were to be taken by UN agencies (UNEP, UNDP, Electoral Affairs Division, Dept. of Political Affairs), the UN Secretary General, the UN Regional Economic Commission, the President of the ECO-SOC, the Chairman of the Special Committee on Decolonization, and an Independent Expert and State administering agents. Few of these directives have been implemented to date. 

III. THE 2006 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

In 2006 the General Assembly adopted the Plan of Implementation (POI) – [A/60/853-E/2006/75, 17 May 2006], to endorse an implementation strategy in 8 areas – Information, Participation, Analysis of Political and Constitutional Arrangements, Missions, Protections and Conservation as well as Ownership and Control of natural Resources, Educational Advancement, Development of Self-Government and support for NSGT’s from the UN – since 2006, no action has been taken to implement the POI, and it is not referenced in the Decolonization discourse despite its approval by the General Assembly, 

The POI was unique in that it paired the recommendations with those best suited to undertake the actions. These included specific U.N. departments and agencies, the U.N. Secretariat, and the administering powers. The POI also recommended the introduction of ‘special mechanisms’ through the use of an Independent Expert to undertake research and analysis that had been mandated in the first and second international decades, but not undertaken. The POI was not undertaken because it was not included in the Decolonization method of work and there was no money in the UN budget for “Special Mechanisms”.

The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has addressed this matter before.We direct the Forums attention to the third Forum report to the ECO-SOC contained in document E/C.19/2004/23, E/2004/43. Recommendation number 54 (pg. 17) states:

“The Forum requests the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples undertake a study on the United Nations decolonization process and the Special Committee on Decolonization to assess its historical and current impact on the human rights of indigenous peoples of the non-self-governing territories. Furthermore, the Forum requests the Secretary General to undertake a mid-decade review or the Second Decade on the Eradication of Colonialism to determine whether substantial progress has been made in achieving the goals of the Second Decade and to identify proposals for addressing obstacles to achieving the goals of the Second Decade.”

Unfortunately, the recommendations of the UN Permanent Forum were ignored. No report was undertaken by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples nor was any mid-decade review undertaken by the Secretary General. It is now time to undertake a mid-decade review of the third decade.

Human Rights Experts and Secretary General call for new approach

At the opening the 2013 substantive session of the Special Committee on Decolonization, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today called on that body to devise “fresh and creative” approaches in mobilizing the political will needed to eradicate colonialism, saying it had no place in the modern world.” 

Pursuant to a decision of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at its eleventh session (see E/2012/43 , para. 112), Edward John, a member of the Permanent Forum, undertook a study of the impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on indigenous peoples, including mechanisms, processes and instruments of redress, with reference to the Declaration, and particularly to articles 26 to 28, 32 and 40. The outcome of the study was submitted to the Permanent Forum at its thirteenth session. (E/C.19/2014/3, 20 Feb 2014).

The report identified the ongoing human rights violations suffered by Indigenous Peoples as the result of the historical and continuing application of the Doctrine of Discovery. It called for redress through new process for ‘Decolonization’…

“34. Processes and mechanisms of redress, as well as independent oversight, are required at international, regional and domestic levels. Decolonization processes must be devised in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned and compatible with their perspectives and approaches. Such processes must be fair, impartial, open and transparent, and be consistent with the Declaration and other international human rights standards.”

The UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order relied in part on the PFII study to justify his latest report on the right of self-determination . See General Assembly, Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order: Note by the Secretary-General, interim report of the Independent Expert Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, UN Doc. A/69/272 (7 August 2014), para. 2, where de Zayas: acknowledges the study on the impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on indigenous peoples, including mechanisms, processes and instruments of redress, submitted to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, in which special rapporteurs are encouraged to play a role in establishing relevant standards (E/C.19/2014/3, para. 36).

At para. 58, de Zayas emphasized: "It is time to face 'historical inequities' and abandon the culture of silence." He relies on the Permanent Forum study in referring to the "racist and factually inapplicable doctrine of discovery". de Zayas then states:

“As the Permanent Forum study observes: “The Doctrine of Discovery is significant globally not only for abuses in the past, but also for its ongoing far-reaching consequences. Such colonial doctrines must not prevail in practice over human rights, democracy and the rule of law……

Self-determination is an expression of the individual and collective right to democracy, as democracy is an expression of the individual and collective right of self-determination. Both have national and international dimensions. The hallmark of self-determination must be public participation in decision-making and control over resources. In most cases this can be achieved within existing State entities, inter alia through federalism and other models of autonomy. (ibid.para. 32).

“The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples constitutes a milestone in the struggle of indigenous peoples for self-determination and provides an important catalogue of rights and entitlements that should guide both Governments and the indigenous peoples themselves.”(ibid. para. 60).

“The right [of self-determination] is not extinguished with lapse of time because, just as the rights to life, freedom and identity, it is too important to be waived.”(para. 66)

A failed case example of the decolonization process is the United States unincorporated territory of Guam in the Pacific. Guam was listed on the United Nations List of Non-Self-Governing Territories since its inception in 1946. Chamorros, the indigenous people of Guahan (Guam), have testified before the United Nations to report the United Nations’ violation of our most sacred human right to Self-Determination for over three generations; only to have the petitions fall on deaf ears. Not only has the United States not provided the necessary resources for an educational campaign towards a plebiscite, they have absented themselves from the consultative process of the United Nations Decolonization Committee sessions and its regional seminars for nearly 20 years now. 

Conclusion

Since the last global intervention was filed with the Forum on this topic in 2008, many Experts in the UN system have addressed the critical need to move forward to address and remedy the legacy of colonization. It is evident that the Fourth Committee is unable or unwilling to address the critical human rights issues relating to the right of self-determination of peoples in the Non-Self-Governing Territories and that this matter must be addressed by the Third Committee, the Forum and other Experts within the UN Human Rights System.

The Pacific Signatories to this Intervention recommend the following to the Forum Experts:

1. That the Forum recommend the ECO-SOC implement the relevant provisions of the Plan of Implementation (POI) adopted by the General Assembly– [A/60/853-E/2006/75, 17 May 2006], and ensure the necessary resources are made available to carry out the Plan. 

2. That the Forum recommend the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of the Peoples of the Non Self- Governing Territories to oversee and report to the United Nations on the status of human rights in the Non- Self-Governing Territories and the implementation of the POI.

3. That the Forum undertake a Mid-Decade review of the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism with the aim of identifying impediments to the fulfillment of the mandate, and proposing solutions to the Decolonization crisis experienced by Indigenous Peoples in the Non Self-Governing Territories.