Gandhi’s Lesson for Today

Published on Saturday, October 1, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

by Kathy Kelly

In a soon-to-be published book entitled Gandhi and the Unspeakable: His Final Experiments with Truth, Jim Douglass contrasts the deadly machinations of Gandhi's probable killers with Gandhi’s own incredible bravery and that of his followers, whose mantra during campaigns for independence expressed their absolute commitment to resist injustice openly, lovingly and fearlessly: with their whole lives. Their mantra was “Do or die.” (Flickr: Hiteshi)

By 1946, the longed-for independence of India had become a reality, but Gandhi was deeply dismayed by the slaughter taking place as Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs massacred each other. He determined to visit the villages most affected by the violence, beginning in the Noakhali region where the population included 1,800,000 Muslims and 400,000 Hindus. In this region, “the minority Hindus were landowners and professionals,” Douglass writes. “They had ignored grievances from Muslim workers who, incensed by tales of Hindus killing Muslims elsewhere, carried out vicious attacks.”

Gandhi and a handful of his friends fanned out, going singly to the Noakhali villages where savage butchery had taken place, and agreed to live alone, in the midst of the violence, and do their best to clean up the debris, rebuild homes and be of general service to the community.

Douglass focuses on the image of Gandhi walking 116 miles to visit 47 villages, forced to balance as precariously in travel as he had in his politics and his life: “Walking against a background of sky and vegetation, Gandhi could be seen crossing the shankos of Noakhali, narrow bamboo bridges held high on poles.” This trip, made at age 77, he undertook many parts of entirely alone: he and his followers were needed in too many places.

Ordinary people responded positively to the pilgrims who came into their villages. The experiment moved on to Bihar, Calcutta and eventually to New Delhi, attempting to combat the terrorism of both Hindu and Muslim ethnic violence. Eventually, in Delhi, he undertook a final fast for Hindu-Muslim unity. “I shall terminate the fast only when peace has returned to Delhi,” said Gandhi. “If peace is restored to Delhi it will have effect not only on the whole of India but also on Pakistan. When that happens, a Muslim will be able to walk around in the city all by himself.”

Gandhi’s assassins were plotting violence in secret, both against Gandhi and his vision of Muslim safety in the heart of India, even as Gandhi repeatedly risked all, employing his “truth force,” the astonishing power of truth, of transparency and nonviolence, that had liberated India. What relevance do Gandhi’s tactics of choice have in these times of night raids, drone warfare, and, as the new centerpiece of our foreign policy, a tightening net of abductions and assassinations aiming to cover the globe?

Gandhi the truth-teller died at the hands of his killers, some of whom, Jim Douglass alleges, walked away scot-free under cover of self-preserving lies. Gandhi’s assassins believed they were working for the betterment of a country which Gandhi had already moved mountains to liberate, uplift, and enrich, and which they proceeded to help destroy. I think of the United States’ tactic of seemingly universal war, to be waged indefinitely throughout a world, where no Muslim will be able to walk in safety if, according to perpetrators of Islamophobia, our nation is finally to prosper.

Consider the contrast between Gandhi’s precarious, defenseless efforts to reach his fellow humans, traveling alone and armed only with truth, and, in contrast, weigh U.S. reliance on a massive arsenal of weapons and armed warriors, costing the world $2 billion dollars per week in lost productivity.

Aged Gandhi walked alone into a nightmare of fear on those bamboo bridges, and his payment for it was death, but his path was one through sunlight that redeemed his country; while his scheming jingoistic killers devised a doom for India which is still bloodily unfolding. Many patriots claim to love the U.S., but the darkness and the blood will corrupt this love, will make us doom our country: our safety will not survive the determination to find it in arms, in numbers, and in the cover of night.

Gandhi’s solitary sunlit path, his path against the sky, was by far the less precarious. As we may learn through occupations of town squares across the U.S., truth, and only truth, can keep the balance.

Kathy Kelly, a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence. Kathy Kelly's email is kathy@vcnv.org

Chamorro Self-Determination

Chamorro Self-Determination
(Published in 3 parts by the Marianas Variety)
By Ben Pangelinan

Over 3,600 years before the lost European Ferdinand Magellan ascended into our small island chain, 3,830 years before my grandmother was born and 3,887 years ago before I was born ---the Chamorro people sailed the oceans and lived on this land they called Guahan.

While we may assume that all was well, there was turmoil and fights among the natives, as territories were established, villages were staked out and boundaries were defended. Then in 1668 they came to settle, bringing their own social and religious systems, work, faith and institutions to make our heathen lives civilized and whole.

Some of the natives succumbed and converted. Maga lahis Hineti, Ayihi, So’on and Odo fought on the sides of the occupiers and were rewarded with title and status. Hurao, Ahgao, Hula, Chaifi, Mata’pang and Tolahi and many others resisted and fought these outsiders. They resisted and waged fierce battles to preserve our land, sea, and the fruits and bounties that were ours. They believed it was more important to live as we knew how and to serve our wants and needs as we saw fit. (I Manmanaina-ta: I Manmaga’lahi yan I manma’gas; Geran Chamoru yan Espanot 1668-1695. Ed Benavente 2007).

The resistance lasted for over 27 years and resulted in bloodshed. From the very beginning, the people strongly resisted and would not abandon their ancient customs or bow to the authority of the Spaniards. Governor de la Corta wrote in his Memoria “one does not know which to admire most, whether the tenacity of the Spaniards in conflicts with the elements against a cunning and treacherous people during no less than 20 years of resistance, or that of the natives pursuing such a cruel and prolonged war which could only end in their annihilation and ruin.”

The truth of these words, “annihilation and ruin” is reflected in the “reduccion” which sought to convert the natives. Beginning in 1668, marked by the killing of Pale Diego de San Vitores in 1672 and ending in 1698, it saw the reduction of the Chamorro people from the estimated 60,000 to 100,000 at the time of discovery to just 3,678, according to the 1710 census, a mere 12 years after the end of the war. (The Marianas Islands 1884-1887 Random Notes. Francisco Olice y Garcia. Translated and Annotated by Marjorie G. Driver. Second Edition 2006).

Insight to the determination of the Chamorros to defy the occupiers in the face of certain annihilation and ruin is most clearly articulated by Chief Hurao:

“The Europeans would have done better to remain in their own country. We have no need of their help to live happily. They take away from us the primitive simplicity in which we live. They dare to take away our liberty, which should be dearer to us than life itself. They try to persuade us that we will be happier, and some of us had been blinded into believing their words. But can we have such sentiments if we reflect that we have been covered with misery and illness ever since those foreigners have come to disturb our peace? For what purpose do they teach us except to make us adopt their customs, to subject us to their laws, and lose the precious liberty left to us by our ancestors?

We are stronger than we think! We can quickly free ourselves from these foreigners! We must regain our former freedom.” (Speech by Chief Hurao. Dated: 1671).

But heart and determination was not enough to overcome the resources and the advance weapons of the occupiers. For the next 200 plus years, the people lived under the control and domination of this outside metropolitan government. Then in 1898, as part of the spoils of the Spanish-American War, a new domination was begun. This time it was under the United States of America. While the Spanish used force, faith and bullets to impose their will, this new power was more beguiling using seduction and law to get their way.

An interesting fact of the event of this war, which placed Guam under the United States, was that it was declared after the passage of the Tellar amendment to ensure that the United States would not establish permanent control over Cuba following the cessation of hostilities with Spain. The amended resolution demanded the Spanish withdrawal and authorized the President to use as much military force as he thought necessary to help Cuba gain independence from Spain. Of the four territories taken by the United States because of the war, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam, Puerto Rico and Guam continue to be under the administrative control of the United States. While the new occupier had a different approach towards the natives, they had one thing in common with the old—they imposed a government upon us, not of our own choosing. 1898 did not only bring a new occupying government over the people of Guam, it also brought a new occupant to Guam and that was my grandmother who was born on this island.

For the next four decades, the United States wielded its authority over the people, making decisions, which suited their needs and determined for us, the natives, what our needs were. Once again, the native leaders rose up to regain our rights, as a people in our own land..

Using reason and law, the weapons of the new occupiers, instead of sword and violence of the old, our leaders fought for our rights to govern ourselves and determine for ourselves what is best for our people. Once again, the occupier’s resources overwhelmed the meager resources of our people. We petitioned the Congress and even walked out of an institution they said gave us democracy and self-government when it was obvious they only did it to appease us. They continued to deny our right to self-determination and to our sisters in waiting—Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines.

Once again, war came and the geopolitical events affecting independent states brought us a short era of foreign domination and occupation of a new power as Japan invaded Guam. Again, our people resisted and fought, while the United States left the Chamorros behind to deal with the invading enemy. The need for a base of operations to defeat the Japanese saw the return of the Americans, as she reclaimed her lost territory to serve as the launching point to end the war. As part of the structure of the new world order, the states of the world organized as a Union Nations dedicated to resolving future disputes in a peaceful manner and recognized the need to respect and honor the rights of those peoples liberated from domination and war.

The signatory states of the United Nations Charter freely agreed to obligate themselves and accept responsibility for the “administration of territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount … and to this end they would seek to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the people, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its people and their varying stages of advancement.” (Chapter X1, Article 73 (b). United Nations Charter).

At the signing of the United Nations Charter, nearly 100 nations were voluntarily placed on the list of non-self governing territories by the signatory states which held these places before World War II and entrusted to them the administration of the affairs to be governed according to the Charter. The United States as part of this event, accepted the obligation over Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Micronesia).

Since the establishment of the list, over 80 of the territories from the original list of non-self governing territories have been herded by their administrative authority through the process of self-determination, attaining the free expression of the people, their ultimate desire. Despite this progress, by 1960 the General Assembly believed that the pace of decolonization of the non-self governing territories, which still included Guam was too slow and adopted two landmark resolutions.

The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples marked the shift from the “principle of self determination for these territories” to “all peoples have the right to self-determination.” It further states that, “All people have the right to self-determination by virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (Resolution 1514(XV).

A component of that Declaration of Colonial People, Resolution 1514 set forth three ways in which these territories can attain a full measure of self-determination as envisioned in the Charter.The first option is Free association with an independent State as a result of the voluntarily choice expressed through an informed and democratic process. The second option is through Integration with an independent State based on complete equality between the peoples of the non-self governing territory and the independent State. And the third option was Independence. Whatever the option chosen by the people of the non-self governing territory, it must be the result of the freely expressed wishes of these peoples.

As of today, there remain 16 non-self governing territories from the original list of close to 100 who have yet to exercise self-determination and freely express their choice. Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, all administrated by the United States are part of the last remaining 16. There have been attempts by administrating authorities to redefine not only the process of self-determination and decolonization, but the status of self government as well. Decolonization is what happens when one exercises self-determination. It is direct democracy and affirmative action freely expressed by the people themselves, clearly a right inherent in the people of Guam and clearly remains unexercised to this date.

With the signing of the Treaty of Paris on April 11, 1899 between Spain and the United States, Guam’s status as a territory under the sovereignty of the United States was cemented in law with the ratification of the treaty. While we may not accept it, Guam and its people became the property of the United States and the governing of the people of Guam and their rights fell to the Congress. Article IX of the Treaty of Paris declared, “The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants… shall be determined by the Congress.”

The subsequent placement of Guam on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United States effectively transferred the purview and process of determining the civil rights and political status for the people of Guam to the United Nations. The ratification and the acceptance of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions by the United States now governs the processes for granting the rights of the people of Guam to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, in my opinion, confers upon the people of Guam the rights contained in the applicable United Nations process.

The petition for citizenship and the subsequent granting of such citizenship by the Organic Act is consistent with the responsibility of the United States as the administrating authority over Guam to “provide progressive development of their free political institutions” in no way can be defended as the free expression of the people of Guam. Acceptance of such incremental development and the improvement in such status is not the free exercise of choosing such status and most certainly not the will of the people. It is still a will imposed upon the people—no matter how generous, no matter how benevolent, no matter how good the administrating authority is. The true test of their goodness is when we decide on our own what we want for ourselves and they support it. Unfortunately, they have not been good.

When we talk about self-determination, one of the key elements of this exercise is the free and educated expression of the people’s right in determining their political status for themselves. As the administrating authority, it is the responsibility of the United States to fund the education process, so that the status option, whichever one is selected is not the status offered by those who have the most money to present their case.
An educated choice is the essential element in the exercise of self-determination and the people must be educated on the promise and the reality of each option to ensure a free choice.

Who are the people vested with the right of self-determination? It is clear that these people are the native inhabitants of a territory who are living under a political status or part of a political relationship with another state without their free expression to do so. These are the people to which the United Nations Charter speaks to as the colonial peoples of the non-self governing territories. Beginning with the Guam Legislature’s empanelling of the Political Status Commission in 1973, the struggle by the people of Guam to exercise their right to self-determination as recognized under the international law was initiated. A special Commission on the Political Status of Guam followed leading to Guam’s first political status plebiscite in 1976. The plebiscite was open to all the voters of Guam with a majority selecting the option of improved status quo.

In 1977, the federally sanctioned Constitutional Convention resulted in the draft of a constitution that was approved by the Congress but ultimately rejected by the people of Guam. The constitution was still subject to a status imposed upon the people, not of their own choosing. With a new Commission on Self-Determination in 1980, another status plebiscite, opened to all registered voters was approved. The plebiscite was held in 1982 with seven available status options. When none received a majority, a run off was held with the choice of commonwealth status eclipsing statehood by a three to one margin. For the next fifteen years, Congress and the President deferred any concrete action to approve the Guam Commonwealth Act.

The Commonwealth Act provided for Chamorro self-determination, mutual consent and immigration control, agreed to by the United States in the Covenant with the Northern Marianas. In 1997 during a congressional hearing before the House Resources Committee, it became clear that federal officials would not support these provisions in Guam’s Commonwealth Act.

With the continued inaction by the United States, the people of Guam and the leaders of Guam turn to the international basis of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination as embodied by the acceptance of the United States of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions which clearly outline the process for the decolonization of a people who remain under the list of non-self governing territories. This foray into accepting a constitution, drafting a constitution, voting on a constitution without the freely expressed wishes of the people as to the political status upon which this constitution will be used to govern, is what is missing.

From that failure, the direction has changed. It is now the policy of the people of Guam to seek first the expression of our right to self-determination through the freely exercised vote on a plebiscite for the statuses available to us under the United Nations articles and resolutions. No granting of any amount of internal self-governance without the people of Guam first freely voting on the political status that frames such self-governance can be interpreted as an expression and the fulfillment of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination.

We look forward to this continued effort, this continued quest of the people of Guam – the colonized people of Guam to exercise and make their fully educated choice on the options presented to us under the UN Charter and UN Resolution to fulfill the right of self-determination inherent in a people subjugated and dominated by administrating powers over the last four hundred years.

Papuan Tribal Leaders Demand Closure Of US Mine In Indonesia

Papuan Tribal Leaders Demand Closure Of US Mine In Indonesia

Tuesday, 22 December 2009 13:46

Tribal leaders in Indonesia's restive Papua province Tuesday called for the closure of a massive US mine linked to allegations of rights abuses, as they buried a slain rebel leader.

Some 400 people followed the casket of Free Papua Movement (OPM) commander Kelly Kwalik, who was shot in a police raid last week, through the streets of Timika to his grave beside a local church.

Kwalik's death has triggered days of anti-Indonesian protests and calls for independence for the ethnic Melanesian region on the extreme east of the Indonesian archipelago.

Anger has also been directed at US miner Freeport McMoRan, which operates a huge gold and copper mine north of Timika that has long been at the centre of allegations of rights abuses against ordinary Papuans.

Kwalik, who was 60 when he died after spending 30 years fighting for Papuan independence, claimed to have been dispossessed by the mine and was accused of several deadly ambushes against Freeport workers.

Police blame him for a series of attacks this year which killed three people including an Australian mine worker on the road north of Timika. In 2002 he allegedly killed two American Freeport employees in similar circumstances.

Kwalik denied the allegations and some analysts believe the Indonesian security forces launched the attacks as a way of extracting more protection money from Freeport.

"Freeport is responsible for the death of Kelly Kwalik and that is why Freeport must be shut down," Papua Customary Council spokesman Dominicus Serabut told mourners ahead of Kwalik's burial.

"General Kelly Kwalik was not involved in the shootings in the area of Freeport Indonesia," he added.

Poorly-armed OPM guerrillas have waged a war of independence for four decades, often launching hit-and-run attacks against Indonesian troops with traditional bows and arrows and World War II-era rifles.

Kwalik's casket was draped in the outlawed "Morning Star" flag of Papuan independence, a last act of defiance given stiff penalties up to life in prison for anyone waving the separatist standard.

Some 800 people attended a funeral mass on Monday but disagreements among tribal leaders delayed the burial.

Indonesia gained sovereignty over the Papua region in 1969 in a UN- backed vote widely seen as rigged.

Evolution over revolution

Evolution over revolution

Wednesday, 11 November 2009 05:25
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff

THE local indigenous community should lean more toward evolution and not revolution in its efforts to achieve political self determination, United Nations advisor Dr. Carlyle Corbin advised during a recent public forum held at the University of Guam.

Corbin, who is also a political self determination expert and a former U.S. Virgin Islands politician, explained that evolution is “far more palatable and less threatening.”

“All of the things you can do in a revolution you can do in evolution,” Corbin stressed.

On revolution and colonies, the UN advisor said: “I don’t often use the ‘R’ word. I don’t often use the ‘C’ word either because of the connotation of certain imagery and tendency to typecast the person who’s using it.”

He added that those who seek self determination must be cognizant of the terminology used.

“Regardless of the kind of movement you make it’s going to take bringing the people with you. You cannot go ahead of them too far. You have to be able to bring them along, and in many cases, you have to follow their lead. They also have experiences they can share in moving forward,” Corbin said.

In addition to answering various questions and concerns of the local community on the issue of self determination, Corbin also talked about “Guam and International Law: Self Determination, Globalization, and Militarism.”

When asked how the local indigenous population should act if the U.S. denies independence, Corbin answered: “If there was a legitimate referendum held in a territory and the people choose a particular option, especially if it’s independence, then all international mechanisms of grievance would be available to proceed.”

Corbin cited his daughter as his central source of inspiration, saying he has gained additional inspiration in meeting the local youth movement for self determination.

“The young people I have met here have been extraordinary. Your generation and the generations before you have a great interest in moving forward and advancing. That’s an inspiration that I take. I have elders as well who have passed it on to me,” Corbin said.

Self-Determination and Realpolitik

Island Stir: Self-Determination and Realpolitik
Friday, 21 August 2009 00:10 by Gerardo Partido
Marianas Variety News Staff

The issue of self-determination has become prominent again after the recent visit to the island by a congressional delegation led by Congressman Nick Rahall of West Virginia.

Congressman Rahall, responding to a question from Sen. Eddie Calvo during a forum, stated that he supports self-determination for Guam and that the federal government would abide with whatever decision island residents make with regard to political status.

Rahall is the chairman of the House committee with direct oversight over Guam. And as Sen. Ben Pangelinan noted in his column last Tuesday, Rahall’s statement was the first declaration of support in recent memory from someone with real power in Congress.

Rahall, however, was probably just being gracious to his hosts. Under the concept of realpolitik, which states that politics are amoral and that things should be looked at realistically, I doubt whether the federal government would give Guam a chance for self-determination, at least not in the immediate future.

As the champion of freedom and democracy in the world, the U.S. may morally and ideologically support self-determination. But under realpolitik, Guam is just too important to U.S. security for the federal government to just allow us to adopt whatever political status we want.

Ever since the U.S. Navy and Air Force were forced out of the Philippines, Guam has become America’s most strategic fortress in this part of the world. Guam truly is the tip of the American spear and this is not just rhetoric.

With China continuing to grow as a superpower and Guam in proximity to the major hotspots in the region, America would never dare risk its control over Guam even at the expense of its ideals.

Under realpolitik, two of the options available to Guam for self-determination (namely independence and free association) may already be counted out.

It is hard to see the U.S. granting Guam independence as it did the Philippines. Look at what happened in the Philippines and how America’s bases were booted out there. America simply can’t take that chance again.

On the other hand, free association and commonwealth may not be desirable to the U.S. either because the military cannot build up its forces here if we have our own independent immigration and labor policy as the CNMI does.

In fact, the impending federalization of the CNMI can be seen as part of the U.S. attempt to increase security and tighten its control.

With the U.S. building up its forces on Guam, it makes no sense, security-wise, for our neighbors in the north to be inundated with Russian and Chinese tourists as well as alien workers. Thus, our tourism leaders can dream all they want but it is highly unlikely that Russia and China will be included in the new visa waiver program.

The federalization of the CNMI, the final implementing rules of which will be released in just a matter of weeks, is really meant to exert more control over the CNMI and by fait accompli link it closer to Guam, with our island as the dominant partner.

The closer integration of Guam and a satellite CNMI is a natural development given the military buildup. This integration would not only make it more convenient to manage security, it would also give the U.S. more areas for military use.

As for statehood, the third self-determination option, Guam can gain a lot of benefits from total integration with the United States.

But the real question under realpolitik is what’s in it for the United States? They already get their benefits from Guam under the island’s current political status as an unincorporated U.S. territory. Would the U.S. want the additional costs and responsibility that statehood would bring?

Of course, the situation is not totally hopeless. As Sen. Pangelinan pointed out, the stars may indeed be aligned for Guam’s self-determination with Rahall’s declaration of support, a more enlightened U.S. leader in President Obama, and a native son as an assistant secretary of the Department of Interior.

But unless we see truly concrete actions from the federal government in support of self-determination, let us welcome Rahall’s promise of support but not expect too much from it.

Rahall Backs Guam Self-Determination

Rahall backs Guam self-rule
Thursday, 13 August 2009 01:01 by Jude Lizama
Marianas Variety News Staff .

CONGRESSMAN Nick Rahall of West Virginia said yesterday he would support the choice of the island community “to decide and unite among yourselves as to what you want” in reference to Guam’s political status.

“Certainly, we’re not going to address the issue if we see division and different sides fighting each other on the issue,” Rahall said. “The people at the grassroots level have to get it together first. That’s what democracy is all about.”

Guam has three options to choose from—statehood, free association or independence. However, the self-determination plebiscite has been suspended indefinitely due to the Guam Elections Commission’s inability to meet the required percentage of voters to fill the Native Inhabitants Registry.

Rahall made known his position on Guam’s quest for self-rule in response to Sen. Eddie B. Calvo’s question during the Chamber of Commerce meeting at the Hyatt Regency Guam yesterday.

“When we choose our political status, would you be in favor of that choice and fight for this cause?” Calvo asked Rahall, to which the congressman replied, “Yes, we would.”

Rahall added that the community is “going to have to get out and work among themselves.”

As chairman of the powerful U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, Rahall oversees federal insular areas including Guam. The island’s political status is the longest standing local political issue ever faced.

Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo noted efforts by her office to identify and fund an educational program for a plebiscite emphasizing her commitment to see the island community hold a plebiscite and achieve self-determination once and for all.

“It’s really up to the people,” she said. “Whatever you decide, I’ll carry the water.”

Unique
Rahall added that Congress recognizes the uniqueness of what is being asked of the island, which he stated is a “big factor in your favor.” But that regardless of such factors, he said, the island community still needs to “work together.”

“It’s not us from Washington imposing our will down upon the people, but the people expressing from the grassroots level up to us what they want to see,” Rahall said. “Not only with political status, but that affects the military buildup, as well.”

He advised the local community to not “sit back and expect the federal government to shower dollars down upon every problem that comes up.”

Rahall determined that because of prevailing budgetary conditions, island leaders should seek private help and private-public partnerships with the recognition that there are less federal dollars available for a plebiscite.

Voice of the people
“Many of our people feel their voice won’t count even if we choose a political status in a plebiscite. We should take every opportunity to secure commitments from U.S. leaders that they will respect and stand by the self-determination of the people of Guam,” said Calvo. “Guam is important to U.S. interests, now more than ever. This is the time to expect action from the U.S. government on an issue that has languished for far too long.”

An Independent Guam

EGuam on its own
Monday, 10 August 2009 00:31 Letter to the Editor .

THIS is the picture of an independent Guam that I have in my mind. The United States keeps Anderson Air Force Base here simply as a military outpost in the Pacific and as our security. All other lands in military inventories are reverted to GovGuam, being distributed and used at our discretion.

American dollar remains to be our currency, like other independent Pacific nations that have this form of security and currency arrangement. With a stable government and currency comes investors’ confidence. All existing free enterprises continue. All jobs are retained. Mortgages and bills get paid. Now we invest in our selves.

We can take advantage of our proximity to the ocean. We can invest and develop the following initiatives:

A storage facility to accommodate fish harvests from the entire Micronesian region;
A fish cannery;
A transit point for distribution of Micronesian fish to the world;
A fueling and replenishment point for the fishing fleets. In addition to fueling, vessels can replenish supplies such as food, fishing inventory and labor.

Because of our proximity to Micronesia and Asia, these ideas are feasible and will stimulate the development of more businesses. Thousands of new jobs will be created and new monies will be infused into our economy. With new monies we will live better.

Our hospital, utilities, roads, trash and other services will be better maintained. And the domino effect will touch individual lives.

I am not talking about going back to coconut huts and grass skirts. We can leave those for the tourists to marvel at. I like my computer, cell phone, the mall, movies and my car, but I also feel that it is our destiny as a people to decide our fate, for better or worse. It is our birth right.

Caged things must be set free at some point. As with our children, even with all our investment, time and love, there comes the time when we have to let them seek their own path.

Ben “Sinahi” del Rosario
Mangilao

Summit Will Tackle Self-Determination Issue

Chamoru Summit II tackles self-determination options
Friday, 24 October 2008
By Beau Hodai
Variety News Staff

AN event to educate and get young Chamorros involved with issues of self determination will be held tomorrow at the University of Guam. Hope Cristobal

The Chamoru Summit II will be held at the UOG College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences lecture hall from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. this Saturday.
Lisa Natividad, an organizer of the event and an assistant professor at the university in the division of social work, said the event will be divided into two tracks, the first track focusing on options for Chamorro self-determination.

She said the first track will be divided into four sections.

The first section will be a presentation by former Senator Hope Cristobal on a framework for self-determination as outlined by the United Nations. The second section will be a presentation on the option of statehood. The third section will focus on the option of free association and the fourth option will discuss the option of all-out independence.

"The whole idea is that at some point, we have to exercise the right," said Natividad. "And exercising the right basically means getting out there, having a vote, and the people deciding on which avenue to pursue -- and then developing that particular political agreement with the U.S.," she said.

"We would then move into developing a compact or some sort of political relationship with the U.S. to move away from the unincorporated territory status that we have now-- which really is equivalent to that of a colony," she added.

Natividad said that track two of the event will focus on different strategies toward gaining self-determination, and will be broken down into five separate committee meetings.

One committee will deal with legal strategies, another with issues of economic development.

Two committees will deal with educational strategies and aspects of Chamorro education and one will deal with registering Chamorros to the Chamorro Registry.

Cristobal, who established the registry and the Decolonization Commission while in the Legislature, said she hopes the summit will serve not only to educate young Chamorros on the right to self determination but also serve as a forum for discussion on the subject and encourage a new generation to register as Chamorros.

She said it is important for people to register so that they can asses their numbers and work better as a whole towards the goal of self-determination.

"I feel there has been no progress toward this by our public officials," said Cristobal. She went on to say that, on an international scale, there are many people in the global community who don't realize that there are people living under the United States who are struggling to maintain their identities.

Natividad said that in light of the approaching military buildup, the issue of self-determination is especially pressing.

"The military presence is a real big concern when you're talking about Chamorro self-determination issues," said Natividad. "One of the main reasons why it's a big concern is because when you talk about increasing the population of Guam with the military, it waters down the population of the people who are able to vote for this. Their increased presence here is a real threat to Chamorros having the right and opportunity to exercise self-determination."

The Other Hawai'i

This week Avi Lewis visits the people behind the native movement for self-determination in Hawaii. Well over 200 years old the movement has recently been gaining on strength.


Part 1


Part 2