Julian Aguon for Marianas Variety
Monday, June 27, 2011
(Editor's Note: Julian Aguon is an attorney who specializes in international law, and has authored several books and law journal articles on the subjects of self-determination, decolonization, and international human rights law. He teaches International Law at the University of Guam and has lectured extensively on these and other issues on four continents. This is the first of a series on his legal appraisal of Guam’s quest for self-determination.)
THE imprecision let loose on this island is more dangerous now than it has ever been, and writers, like myself, are being called to battle in a way we were not before.
In these high-stakes times – when the chips we are gambling with are children, coral reefs, limestone forests, narratives, whole imaginations – writers are called upon to do more than use our words; we are called to wield them. And in a time when words have been so methodically drained of meaning, it is irresponsible, if not indictable, to be imprecise.
The recent clamor around self-determination has demonstrated the danger of haphazardly flinging words around. The onslaught of opinion about the right of self-determination – namely what it is and who holds it – has reached a deafening roar.
We can hardly hear ourselves think. But in the end, opinions about the law are not the law. And despite the aggressive assertions of some, self-determination, at least as a matter of law, is not entirely up for debate. For instance, self-determination is not principally a race-based issue. Neither is it a purely political (as opposed to legal) one.
The right of self-determination has a certain shape and contour on which nearly the whole world has agreed. Self-determination is well-established in both the legal literature and actual practice of countries, and is an exalted normative domain in the contemporary international legal system. The recent clamor, then, is cruel. It does not help the people of Guam make sense of self-determination. It clouds, not clarifies, the law in this area. The following is a brief legal appraisal of self determination under international law, which is offered in an attempt to erase some of the confusion surrounding the fundamental human right.
What is the right of self-determination?
Upon the founding of the United Nations at the end of World War II and continuing thereafter, the international community increasingly recognized that the plight of colonized peoples, and later of indigenous peoples, must be terminated and their self-determination assured. The UN Charter itself, being both a political compact and an organic document, made but cursory references to this norm.
Its Article 1 calls for the development of “friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” Article 55 then states that the United Nations shall promote, among other values, “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.”
Article 73, which addresses the rights of peoples in non-self-governing territories (like Guam) who have not yet attained a full measure of self-government, commands states administering them to “recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount.” These Administering Powers accept as a “sacred trust” the obligation to develop self-government in the territories, taking due account of the political aspirations of the people. Toward this end, subsection (e) of Article 73 commands Administering Powers to submit annual reports to the United Nations on the steps they have taken and the progress they have made to move the territories toward self-government.
The interpretation of these Charter articles has been set out in major declarations adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.
For instance, the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, or Resolution 1514, states that “[t]he subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.” Although the general rule is that declarations and resolutions of the General Assembly are not in themselves binding, to the extent that they illuminate and record the position of the international community on any given subject, they may be, and are frequently invoked as, evidence of the practice of states, which is a source of customary international law.
ICJ
Moreover, where General Assembly resolutions concern general norms of international law, their acceptance by a majority vote both constitutes evidence of the opinions of governments on any given subject and provides a basis for the progressive development of the law.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 1975 advisory opinion in the Western Sahara case adopted this perspective when it relied heavily on General Assembly resolutions to establish basic legal principles concerning the right of peoples to self-determination.
Major international conventions, or treaties, have lent further meaning and growth to the concept of self-determination. Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (known collectively as the 1966 Human Rights Covenants) enshrine self-determination as a right. Approved by the General Assembly in 1966, and legally binding as of 1976, these treaties bind those countries that ratify them. The first article in each covenant, identically worded, indicates the fundamental importance of the right of self-determination in international law and sets out its classic wording: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Finally, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, also known as Resolution 2625 (XXV), provides that all peoples have the right to determine their political status without external interference, and that every state has the duty to respect this right.
Unlike the 1966 Covenants, which bind only those states that ratify them, Resolution 2625 is considered a datum of customary international law binding on all countries.
Showing posts with label Colonization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colonization. Show all posts
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Opinion :: Exclusion of Chamorro voice on buildup
Opinion :: Exclusion of Chamorro voice on buildup
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
By JOHN S. DELROSARIO JR.
Special to the Saipan Tribune
The completion of the Environmental Impact Statement on the planned military buildup in Guam is out for public scrutiny. The study addresses the mega impact versus basic infrastructure costs and wildlife habitats on Guam. It did everything else except allow the most important equation: the indigenous people of Guam, specifically, their sentiment on the impending mega buildup.
To address this apparent misgiving or purposeful oversight, Guam’s Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz introduced legislation that would grant the indigenous people the opportunity to vote on whether they support or oppose the planned military project. It is the most appropriate legislation that would grant real stakeholders a participatory voice on substantive issues affecting their livelihood.
These issues must come into full view for deliberative discussions before this plan is given approval for subsequent implementation. It’s a process that must be allowed to take its natural course. Queries abound, including: How would this project impact the quality of life of the indigenous people? Would this require acquisition of more indigenous land for military purposes? What about the future need for residential subdivisions for the indigenous people? Would this issue be reduced to in-consequence in favor of military needs? How would this impact assist the indigenous people on basic infrastructure outside military fortifications? Who is going to defray these costs? In brief, it seems the buildup has the equivalence of placing the bull before the cart.
It is timely that the legislation is considered forthwith so that Uncle Sam hears the muted and oppressed voices of the indigenous people who only ask for common decency in forging a healthy future for their children. The simple folks at home have seen the dysfunctional relationship they had to endure with the military on indigenous land in the Andersen Air Force area. If this is any indication of what lies ahead, then the past is a quick reference for the future.
How much longer must this indignity be imposed rapaciously against a people who have served Uncle Sam so well for more than six decades? That the buildup means moving into my front and backyard definitely commands common decency in order that you ask me for my consent if such a plan is appropriate. I’m not sure that heavier dosages of colonization, alienation, degradation, dispossession, and marginalization of the indigenous people would restore their dignity as permanent hosts of Guam.
If I may, the military is notorious in the acquisition of prime land for its purposes. It has happened in the NMI and Guam. Must there be a repeat of history to understand that such a plan has simply turned the muted voices of our brothers and sisters into the perfect prescription of alienation and inconsequence? If you wish to be a good neighbor, start by listening to our sentiments, too. Rapacious acquisition of indigenous land no longer has a place anywhere in the Pacific Guam and the NMI included.
I wish to note too that the firepower of our country in the Pacific theatre is in the State of Hawaii. Satellite defense facilities aren’t going to aid our defense posture in Asia and the Pacific other than the convenience of imposing "contingency" plans that stampede and crush indigenous dignity and rights. A happy medium is a must and it begins with the military promoting an inclusive policy of participation by the indigenous people of Guam. Anything short of this is a perfect recipe for a dysfunctional relationship with the military.
The Futenma military base in Okinawa speaks volumes of how Okinawans feel about a crowded and noisy fortification in their midst they wish relocated. Some 80,000 people are relocating to Guam and DOD isn’t prepared to listen to the views of their hosts?
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
By JOHN S. DELROSARIO JR.
Special to the Saipan Tribune
The completion of the Environmental Impact Statement on the planned military buildup in Guam is out for public scrutiny. The study addresses the mega impact versus basic infrastructure costs and wildlife habitats on Guam. It did everything else except allow the most important equation: the indigenous people of Guam, specifically, their sentiment on the impending mega buildup.
To address this apparent misgiving or purposeful oversight, Guam’s Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz introduced legislation that would grant the indigenous people the opportunity to vote on whether they support or oppose the planned military project. It is the most appropriate legislation that would grant real stakeholders a participatory voice on substantive issues affecting their livelihood.
These issues must come into full view for deliberative discussions before this plan is given approval for subsequent implementation. It’s a process that must be allowed to take its natural course. Queries abound, including: How would this project impact the quality of life of the indigenous people? Would this require acquisition of more indigenous land for military purposes? What about the future need for residential subdivisions for the indigenous people? Would this issue be reduced to in-consequence in favor of military needs? How would this impact assist the indigenous people on basic infrastructure outside military fortifications? Who is going to defray these costs? In brief, it seems the buildup has the equivalence of placing the bull before the cart.
It is timely that the legislation is considered forthwith so that Uncle Sam hears the muted and oppressed voices of the indigenous people who only ask for common decency in forging a healthy future for their children. The simple folks at home have seen the dysfunctional relationship they had to endure with the military on indigenous land in the Andersen Air Force area. If this is any indication of what lies ahead, then the past is a quick reference for the future.
How much longer must this indignity be imposed rapaciously against a people who have served Uncle Sam so well for more than six decades? That the buildup means moving into my front and backyard definitely commands common decency in order that you ask me for my consent if such a plan is appropriate. I’m not sure that heavier dosages of colonization, alienation, degradation, dispossession, and marginalization of the indigenous people would restore their dignity as permanent hosts of Guam.
If I may, the military is notorious in the acquisition of prime land for its purposes. It has happened in the NMI and Guam. Must there be a repeat of history to understand that such a plan has simply turned the muted voices of our brothers and sisters into the perfect prescription of alienation and inconsequence? If you wish to be a good neighbor, start by listening to our sentiments, too. Rapacious acquisition of indigenous land no longer has a place anywhere in the Pacific Guam and the NMI included.
I wish to note too that the firepower of our country in the Pacific theatre is in the State of Hawaii. Satellite defense facilities aren’t going to aid our defense posture in Asia and the Pacific other than the convenience of imposing "contingency" plans that stampede and crush indigenous dignity and rights. A happy medium is a must and it begins with the military promoting an inclusive policy of participation by the indigenous people of Guam. Anything short of this is a perfect recipe for a dysfunctional relationship with the military.
The Futenma military base in Okinawa speaks volumes of how Okinawans feel about a crowded and noisy fortification in their midst they wish relocated. Some 80,000 people are relocating to Guam and DOD isn’t prepared to listen to the views of their hosts?
Saturday, November 21, 2009
United Nations Action on Decolonisation Resolutions
United Nations Action on Decolonisation Resolutions
20 November 2009
OTR has recently completed its analysis of the vote in the United Nations Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (Fourth Committee) which adopted its 2009 resolutions on the remaining 16 non self-governing territories last month. Whilst a number of the resolutions were approved by consensus, the usual vote was required on others, as several of the countries which administer or occupy territories, or those which have sovereignty disputes over territories, vote against or abstain from specific resolutions.
In the case of the United Kingdom (UK), the usual explanation was given for their position, even as the explanation is inconsistent with its responsibilities under the United Nations Charter. France and the United States (US), however, provide no insight at the Fourth Committee on their negative votes.
In the case of the U.S., the vote by the Obama Administration was strikingly similar to that of the Bush Administration – in fact, it was identical. It appears that the policy’ ‘change’ has not yet filtered down to the issue of decolonisation of the remaining territories – an issue which apparently is of a lesser priority. The recent legislation authorizing U.S. support for a self-determination process for the U.S.-administered territories recently adopted by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources should hopefully serve to stimulate some new thinking on this matter.
OTR offers the following excerpts from the United Nations press release, with substantive commentary in italics.
Draft resolution I, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States).
Explaining his position after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said that, as in previous years, his delegation had abstained. The Government did not take issue with the resolution’s main objective, and continued to meet its obligations in that regard. His Government believed, however, that a decision as to whether a Non-Self-Governing Territory had reached a level of self-government was ultimately for the government of the Territory and the administering Power concerned, and not the General Assembly.
Taking up draft resolution II, on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, the Committee approved the text by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom)
Speaking after the vote, the representative of Argentina said the applicability of the resolution in a given Territory depended on whether the right to self-determination was applicable to that Territory. Thus, it was relevant to bear in mind that certain General Assembly resolutions noted that, in cases where there was a sovereignty dispute, such as in the Malvinas Islands, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas, a negotiated solution was the only path to resolving the dispute, and not self-determination. The resolution, therefore, was not applicable to the Malvinas Islands and the surrounding archipelagic areas. The situation prevailing in this archipelago, belonging to the national territory of a country, resulted in the unilateral exploitation by the United Kingdom of the natural resources of the Malvinas Islands and surrounding marine areas. That ran counter to the Assembly’s decisions in that field, and was a brazen violation.
The representative of the United Kingdom said that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands was well-known, as the United Kingdom had expressed in the right of reply in the general debate on decolonization. There was no doubt about that Territory’s sovereignty and there could be no negotiation about those issues unless and until such time as the islanders so wished.
(Editor's Note: The Falklands Islands and the Malvinas are different names for the same island...)
The Committee then approved draft resolution III on implementation of the (Decolonisation) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to none against, with 50 abstentions.
Speaking in explanation of vote on behalf of the European Union, Sweden’s representative reaffirmed support for the specialized agencies of the United Nations in their efforts, particularly those in the technical and educational fields. The Union favoured careful compliance with those agencies’ statutes. It had therefore abstained from the vote. The U.S. did not speak on this resolution, but did address the same issue during its consideration by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) last August. Accordingly, OTR reported in August that:
“The objections of the various member states to the resolution on assistance to the territories from the UN system are virtually identical to their objections for over a decade. Thus, the US representative continues to articulate to ECOSOC that any assistance to, or participation in, UN programmes for the non self-governing territories must be confirmed by the UN member State which controls the foreign relations of the territories concerned. This is a but a re-statement of the practice which is already in place, and has always been a requirement of the rules of procedure of any UN agency which provides for assistance or participation for these territories. The resolution, even in its present form, makes this clear.
A second objection by the US representative suggests that the resolution somehow “infringes upon” the internal constitutional arrangements of the United States. Yet, the longstanding US practice provides the delegation of authority to the territories, on a case by case basis, to participate in international organisations and activities.
In virtually all cases, it is only the state which controls the international relations of the territory which can make a request for the affiliation of the territory in any given UN body. If the delegation of authority is freely given by the administering power to the territory to participate in a given international organisation or activity, how can it be, at the same time, an infringement on the administering power’s control?”
The representative of Argentina stressed that the resolution should be in line with the previous resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee on Decolonization.
It was unclear what was meant by this position.
Following that, the Committee took up draft resolution VI, on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands approving it without a vote.
But will the provisions be implemented?
Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said that his delegation had joined consensus on the last resolution, which reflected its full support for the right to self-determination. However, his delegation regretted the outdated approach of the “Committee of 24” (Special Committee on Decolonization), which failed to take full account of the way that the relationship between the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories had been modernized in a way acceptable to both parties. The resolution did not fully reflect that modern relationship, he said, and the United Kingdom did not accept the assertion that self-determination did not apply where there existed a sovereignty dispute.
This was a repetition of the statement from previous years.
The representative of Argentina expressed full support for the right of people who were still subjected to colonization, and for the right to self-determination of the 11 Territories in the resolution just adopted. At the same time, as had been expressed in a letter to the Secretary-General distributed on 7 July. the annual resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, and the considerations contained therein, were strictly related to the Territories referred to in those questions. The question of the Malvinas Islands was subjected to separate treatment in specific resolutions that gave due consideration to the special and particular features inherent in it, which were derived from the existence of a sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom.
The Committee next approved draft resolution VII on dissemination of information on decolonization by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States) with 1 abstention (France).
Speaking in explanation of vote, the United Kingdom’s representative said his delegation had voted against the text because it remained of the view that the obligation it placed on the Secretariat to disseminate information represented an unwarranted drain on the Organization’s resources. As such, the resolution was unacceptable to the United Kingdom.
Really?
The representative of Argentina said his delegation wished to express support for the right of self-determination. Despite that, the text should be interpreted and implemented in keeping with pertinent General Assembly resolutions and the various resolutions and statements of the Special Committee on Decolonization, which recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between his country and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas Islands.
(Everything appears to be seen through the prism of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute).
Next, the Committee approved draft resolution VIII on the implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by a vote of 152 in favour to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 2 abstentions (Belgium, France).
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Argentina stressed that, regarding operative paragraph 7, visiting missions proceeded only in cases where self-determination was applicable, specifically those for which there was no sovereignty dispute.
(Everything appears to be seen through the prism of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute).
The representative of the United Kingdom said his delegation had voted “no” because it continued to find some parts of the text unacceptable.
(Which parts, may we ask?)
Nevertheless, the Government of the United Kingdom remained committed to modernizing its relationship with its Overseas Territories, while taking fully into account the views of the peoples of the Territories.
(The usual refrain...).
Following that, the representative of Guinea said that his delegation had intended to vote in favour of draft resolutions I, II and III, and requested that that be duly noted in the record.
Singapore’s representative said that his delegation had wished to vote in favour of the resolutions pertaining to item 35, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the United Nations Charter, and on item 36, on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The representatives of Pakistan and Chile said that their delegations had wanted to vote in favour of resolutions concerning item 35, and item 37, on implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations. The representatives of Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso said they had wished to vote in favour of the resolutions concerning item 35.
On 3rd October, OTR wrote that “how the United Nations deals with decolonization has become “a sterile exercise, a game of pretense played to avoid what is meant to be achieved." We indicated that we would “nevertheless… cover the 2009 session of the Fourth Committee, not because we harbor any illusions that the process will change, but rather because our readership demands to be kept abreast.”
In any event, the General Assembly will take the final vote in December. We'll be there...
20 November 2009
OTR has recently completed its analysis of the vote in the United Nations Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (Fourth Committee) which adopted its 2009 resolutions on the remaining 16 non self-governing territories last month. Whilst a number of the resolutions were approved by consensus, the usual vote was required on others, as several of the countries which administer or occupy territories, or those which have sovereignty disputes over territories, vote against or abstain from specific resolutions.
In the case of the United Kingdom (UK), the usual explanation was given for their position, even as the explanation is inconsistent with its responsibilities under the United Nations Charter. France and the United States (US), however, provide no insight at the Fourth Committee on their negative votes.
In the case of the U.S., the vote by the Obama Administration was strikingly similar to that of the Bush Administration – in fact, it was identical. It appears that the policy’ ‘change’ has not yet filtered down to the issue of decolonisation of the remaining territories – an issue which apparently is of a lesser priority. The recent legislation authorizing U.S. support for a self-determination process for the U.S.-administered territories recently adopted by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources should hopefully serve to stimulate some new thinking on this matter.
OTR offers the following excerpts from the United Nations press release, with substantive commentary in italics.
Draft resolution I, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States).
Explaining his position after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said that, as in previous years, his delegation had abstained. The Government did not take issue with the resolution’s main objective, and continued to meet its obligations in that regard. His Government believed, however, that a decision as to whether a Non-Self-Governing Territory had reached a level of self-government was ultimately for the government of the Territory and the administering Power concerned, and not the General Assembly.
Taking up draft resolution II, on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, the Committee approved the text by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom)
Speaking after the vote, the representative of Argentina said the applicability of the resolution in a given Territory depended on whether the right to self-determination was applicable to that Territory. Thus, it was relevant to bear in mind that certain General Assembly resolutions noted that, in cases where there was a sovereignty dispute, such as in the Malvinas Islands, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas, a negotiated solution was the only path to resolving the dispute, and not self-determination. The resolution, therefore, was not applicable to the Malvinas Islands and the surrounding archipelagic areas. The situation prevailing in this archipelago, belonging to the national territory of a country, resulted in the unilateral exploitation by the United Kingdom of the natural resources of the Malvinas Islands and surrounding marine areas. That ran counter to the Assembly’s decisions in that field, and was a brazen violation.
The representative of the United Kingdom said that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands was well-known, as the United Kingdom had expressed in the right of reply in the general debate on decolonization. There was no doubt about that Territory’s sovereignty and there could be no negotiation about those issues unless and until such time as the islanders so wished.
(Editor's Note: The Falklands Islands and the Malvinas are different names for the same island...)
The Committee then approved draft resolution III on implementation of the (Decolonisation) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to none against, with 50 abstentions.
Speaking in explanation of vote on behalf of the European Union, Sweden’s representative reaffirmed support for the specialized agencies of the United Nations in their efforts, particularly those in the technical and educational fields. The Union favoured careful compliance with those agencies’ statutes. It had therefore abstained from the vote. The U.S. did not speak on this resolution, but did address the same issue during its consideration by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) last August. Accordingly, OTR reported in August that:
“The objections of the various member states to the resolution on assistance to the territories from the UN system are virtually identical to their objections for over a decade. Thus, the US representative continues to articulate to ECOSOC that any assistance to, or participation in, UN programmes for the non self-governing territories must be confirmed by the UN member State which controls the foreign relations of the territories concerned. This is a but a re-statement of the practice which is already in place, and has always been a requirement of the rules of procedure of any UN agency which provides for assistance or participation for these territories. The resolution, even in its present form, makes this clear.
A second objection by the US representative suggests that the resolution somehow “infringes upon” the internal constitutional arrangements of the United States. Yet, the longstanding US practice provides the delegation of authority to the territories, on a case by case basis, to participate in international organisations and activities.
In virtually all cases, it is only the state which controls the international relations of the territory which can make a request for the affiliation of the territory in any given UN body. If the delegation of authority is freely given by the administering power to the territory to participate in a given international organisation or activity, how can it be, at the same time, an infringement on the administering power’s control?”
The representative of Argentina stressed that the resolution should be in line with the previous resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee on Decolonization.
It was unclear what was meant by this position.
Following that, the Committee took up draft resolution VI, on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands approving it without a vote.
But will the provisions be implemented?
Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said that his delegation had joined consensus on the last resolution, which reflected its full support for the right to self-determination. However, his delegation regretted the outdated approach of the “Committee of 24” (Special Committee on Decolonization), which failed to take full account of the way that the relationship between the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories had been modernized in a way acceptable to both parties. The resolution did not fully reflect that modern relationship, he said, and the United Kingdom did not accept the assertion that self-determination did not apply where there existed a sovereignty dispute.
This was a repetition of the statement from previous years.
The representative of Argentina expressed full support for the right of people who were still subjected to colonization, and for the right to self-determination of the 11 Territories in the resolution just adopted. At the same time, as had been expressed in a letter to the Secretary-General distributed on 7 July. the annual resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, and the considerations contained therein, were strictly related to the Territories referred to in those questions. The question of the Malvinas Islands was subjected to separate treatment in specific resolutions that gave due consideration to the special and particular features inherent in it, which were derived from the existence of a sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom.
The Committee next approved draft resolution VII on dissemination of information on decolonization by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States) with 1 abstention (France).
Speaking in explanation of vote, the United Kingdom’s representative said his delegation had voted against the text because it remained of the view that the obligation it placed on the Secretariat to disseminate information represented an unwarranted drain on the Organization’s resources. As such, the resolution was unacceptable to the United Kingdom.
Really?
The representative of Argentina said his delegation wished to express support for the right of self-determination. Despite that, the text should be interpreted and implemented in keeping with pertinent General Assembly resolutions and the various resolutions and statements of the Special Committee on Decolonization, which recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between his country and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas Islands.
(Everything appears to be seen through the prism of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute).
Next, the Committee approved draft resolution VIII on the implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by a vote of 152 in favour to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 2 abstentions (Belgium, France).
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Argentina stressed that, regarding operative paragraph 7, visiting missions proceeded only in cases where self-determination was applicable, specifically those for which there was no sovereignty dispute.
(Everything appears to be seen through the prism of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute).
The representative of the United Kingdom said his delegation had voted “no” because it continued to find some parts of the text unacceptable.
(Which parts, may we ask?)
Nevertheless, the Government of the United Kingdom remained committed to modernizing its relationship with its Overseas Territories, while taking fully into account the views of the peoples of the Territories.
(The usual refrain...).
Following that, the representative of Guinea said that his delegation had intended to vote in favour of draft resolutions I, II and III, and requested that that be duly noted in the record.
Singapore’s representative said that his delegation had wished to vote in favour of the resolutions pertaining to item 35, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the United Nations Charter, and on item 36, on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The representatives of Pakistan and Chile said that their delegations had wanted to vote in favour of resolutions concerning item 35, and item 37, on implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations. The representatives of Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso said they had wished to vote in favour of the resolutions concerning item 35.
On 3rd October, OTR wrote that “how the United Nations deals with decolonization has become “a sterile exercise, a game of pretense played to avoid what is meant to be achieved." We indicated that we would “nevertheless… cover the 2009 session of the Fourth Committee, not because we harbor any illusions that the process will change, but rather because our readership demands to be kept abreast.”
In any event, the General Assembly will take the final vote in December. We'll be there...
Saturday, November 14, 2009
‘Self-rule results in progress’
‘Self-rule results in progress’
Friday, 13 November 2009 04:25
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
UNITED Nations advisor Dr. Carlyle Corbin advised the people of Guam to seize the moment and accelerate the process of self determination, adding that “we may not get another chance.”
During a forum at the University of Guam, Corbin said there has been “dormant evolution” in the self determination processes of many territories around the globe, citing the example of Greenland and its failed attempts for a dialogue on self determination with Denmark and the denial of Greenland’s referendum on self determination by the Danish government.
Additionally, Corbin said the current situations of territories have been further complicated by factors such as militarization and the evolution of the global economy. According to the UN advisor, the absence of self governance decreases the frequency to secure economic agreements, which ultimately hurts the ability for territories to compete in the international economy. As such, the inability of many territories to react to the fast paced world has further increased local challenges.
Nevertheless, Corbin did not focus on the negative effects of colonization, citing the example of free association with U.S. citizenship as a model of autonomy.
He said an expanded autonomy would decrease economic vulnerability, citing a contrasting example of increased vulnerability bolstering dependency governance.
With regard to U.S. territories, Corbin stated that high debt ratio has stabilized the dependence for federal grants.
Corbin also said that strategic value remains for many territories in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, which has been exploited in a continuing trend, solidifying a “priority of suppression.”
In addition, the post 9/11 period and the tightening environment of global and national security hinder territories’ ability to achieve political self determination.
From a militaristic point of view, Corbin said many territories have essentially been “spoils of war,” citing the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the United States’ acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and Cuba from Spain as an example.
Another example provided by Corbin proving war strategy’s influence on territorial affiliation with larger nations was the United States’ concern that German forces would overtake and utilize the Danish-West Indian islands as a submarine base during the First World War. As a result, the U.S. purchased the islands in 1917 from Denmark at a price of $25 million, changing its name to the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Friday, 13 November 2009 04:25
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
UNITED Nations advisor Dr. Carlyle Corbin advised the people of Guam to seize the moment and accelerate the process of self determination, adding that “we may not get another chance.”
During a forum at the University of Guam, Corbin said there has been “dormant evolution” in the self determination processes of many territories around the globe, citing the example of Greenland and its failed attempts for a dialogue on self determination with Denmark and the denial of Greenland’s referendum on self determination by the Danish government.
Additionally, Corbin said the current situations of territories have been further complicated by factors such as militarization and the evolution of the global economy. According to the UN advisor, the absence of self governance decreases the frequency to secure economic agreements, which ultimately hurts the ability for territories to compete in the international economy. As such, the inability of many territories to react to the fast paced world has further increased local challenges.
Nevertheless, Corbin did not focus on the negative effects of colonization, citing the example of free association with U.S. citizenship as a model of autonomy.
He said an expanded autonomy would decrease economic vulnerability, citing a contrasting example of increased vulnerability bolstering dependency governance.
With regard to U.S. territories, Corbin stated that high debt ratio has stabilized the dependence for federal grants.
Corbin also said that strategic value remains for many territories in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, which has been exploited in a continuing trend, solidifying a “priority of suppression.”
In addition, the post 9/11 period and the tightening environment of global and national security hinder territories’ ability to achieve political self determination.
From a militaristic point of view, Corbin said many territories have essentially been “spoils of war,” citing the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the United States’ acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and Cuba from Spain as an example.
Another example provided by Corbin proving war strategy’s influence on territorial affiliation with larger nations was the United States’ concern that German forces would overtake and utilize the Danish-West Indian islands as a submarine base during the First World War. As a result, the U.S. purchased the islands in 1917 from Denmark at a price of $25 million, changing its name to the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)