Showing posts with label Self-Governance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Self-Governance. Show all posts

Sunday, December 27, 2015

'Whatever It Takes': Okinawa Sues Tokyo in Effort to Block US Base

Prefecture's governor vows to take anything necessary to block construction of American military camp

By Nadia Prupis published on Commondreams.org on December 26, 2015. 

Protesters in Tokyo rally against the proposed construction of the Henoko base in 2014. (Photo: AFP)


Okinawa officials on Friday filed a lawsuit against the central Japanese government in a new bid to block the slated construction of a U.S. military base in the prefecture's Henoko region.

"We will do whatever it takes to stop the new Henoko base," Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga said during a press conference Friday. "Okinawa's argument is legitimate, and I believe that it will be certainly understood."

Residents and officials charge that the Japanese government's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism illegally intervened in Onaga's order earlier this year that halted preliminary work on the base. The prefecture said that the ministry acted unlawfully when it suspended Onaga's permit cancellation for work needed to move the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to its slated spot in Henoko.

The legal challenge is the latest effort to block the continued militarization of the southern Japanese island, which has long served as home base for more than half of the 50,000 American military service members in Japan, as well as over two-thirds of U.S. bases in the country. In late October, hundreds of Okinawa residents, largely elders, linked arms and physically blocked vehicles transporting building materials to the base.

"Don't the people of Okinawa have sovereignty?" one protester, 70-year-old Katsuhiro Yoshida, told Japanese paper The Asahi Shimbun at the time. "This reminds me of the scenes of rioting against the U.S. military before Okinawa was returned to Japan (in 1972). Now we are facing off against our own government. It is so contemptible."

Residents have long expressed anger and frustration over the crime and pollution they say comes along with the presence of foreign troops.

"Democracy and local self-determination in Japan are in severe condition," Onaga, who was elected on an anti-base platform, said Friday. "We want the rest of the world to know how the Japan-U.S. security treaty is affecting us."

Thursday, November 19, 2009

US Congressional Committee Approves Self-Determination Assistance to Territories

US Congressional Committee Approves Self-Determination Assistance to Territories

Pacific News Center
Guahan (Guam)
19th November 2009

Guam - The House Committee on Natural Resources has approved a bill that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend technical assistance grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program on Guam. It will now go onto the full house for approval. The bill was sponsored by Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo.

In a release, Bordallo says the full committee approved her amended bill that would allow for Interior to also extend assistance to American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands for their own political status education programs.

The amended version of H.R. 3940 was voted on by unanimous consent.
The mark up of H.R. 3940 comes two weeks after Congresswoman Bordallo chaired a hearing on the bill in the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife.
H.R. 3940 may be taken up for consideration in the near future.

In a release, “The full committee’s approval of H.R. 3940 signals that political status education for non-self-governing territories is a priority for the committee that has jurisdiction over the territories."

"The amended bill now includes authorization for political status education grants for Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands at the request of Congressman Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa and Congresswoman Donna Christensen of the U.S. Virgin Islands."

"While each territory may approach this issue in a manner appropriate to their circumstances, we can all agree that there is a federal responsibility to assist the territories in self-determination, and that this process cannot be successful without a robust political status education component."

"I also appreciate the testimony of our local leaders including Governor Felix Camacho, who testified in person at the hearing, and Speaker Judith Won Pat and Senator Ben Pangelinan who provided written testimonies. This bill was also supported by a coalition of ten organizations on Guam that support decolonization. The testimonies provided by our local leaders and our indigenous rights community representatives helped to make the case of the importance of a path to decolonization for the people of the U.S. territories that are still listed by the United Nations as non-self-governing." (emphasis added)

"The Obama Administration’s support for this political status education bill was also encouraging, and I will be requesting Assistant Secretary Tony Babauta’s leadership to help Guam and the other non-self-governing territories with this process. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress on the issue of political development for our community, and I am hopeful that this bill will help to provide resources to Guam and the other non-self-governing territories for political status education.”


Editor's Note: The Bordallo legislation was also supported by organisations of civil society in Guahan (Guam) which forwarded collective testimony to the US Congress in favour of the measure. Their presentation in support of the bill provides important context to this initiative, and should serve as a guide to the implementation of the measure.

It is to be noted that a number of their recommended amendments have been included in the final version of the bill adopted by consensus in the House Natural Resources Committee, such as the expression of support for the inclusion of the other two US-administered territories presently on the United Nations List of Non Self-Governing Territories, namely American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands. This broader focus is highly commendable, and also has the effect of heightening its importance as the measure proceeds further through the legislative process in Washington. Congress may now recognise that Puerto Rico is not the only US-administered territory in need of a self-determination process.

The active participation of civil society sector in the territories is critical to the successful implementation of this measure to ensure an unbiased and fair process of self-determination based on the legitimate status options of political equality confirmed year after year by the United Nations with United States concurrence. The recent forum held in St. Croix by the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands last month (October) initiated an important public dialogue in that Caribbean territory - for the first time in over a decade - on the political future of that US-administered territory, and American Samoa's political status commission report completed several years ago and the subsequent initiatives being undertaken by the Governor of that territory, are further illustration.

OTR will shortly publish the relevant excerpts of the United Nations Fourth Committee resolutions concerning the self-determination of the territories adopted as recently as last month (October).

The joint testimony of the Guahan (Guam) civil society follows:


Joint Testimony in Support of H.R. 3940
November 11, 2009On behalf of the following organizations:




Chamorro Studies Association
Chamoru Cultural Development and Research Institute
Commission on Decolonization: Independence Task Force
Famoksaiyan
Guahån Coalition for Peace and Justice
The Guahån Youth
Guam Community College's Center for Civic Engagement
I Nasion Chamoru
National Association of Social Workers: Guam Chapter
Taotaomo’na Native Rights Group

The political and social climate of Guam is changing rapidly, yet the island’s people have yet to determine whether or not this change is the future they desire. With an unresolved political status, the people of Guam have been denied the human right to determine their future. This human right to self-determination can no longer be ignored. Therefore, our non-governmental organizations have come together to support H.R. 3940, which “authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to extend grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program for the people of Guam.” We support this bill for the following reasons:

• As noted by Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo in her remarks introducing this bill, the political status of Guam remains unresolved. Over the course of Guam’s 111-year relationship with the United States, only few significant changes have been made with regards to the island’s political status. These changes, however, have not been sufficient, as Guam remains in an ambiguous political position, without a path to self-determination. Guam is an organized, unincorporated territory – it belongs to the United States, but it is not a part of the nation.

• The people of Guam have expressed their desire for a new political status in the past; however, our aspirations have not been realized despite efforts by Guam’s representatives, the administration and Congress. H.R. 3940 could provide an important catalyst in terms of reinvigorating the process of self-determination on Guam; first by helping to educate its people about the options available to them in their political evolution, and secondly by placing the issue of self-determination itself back on the Federal agenda in Washington D.C.

• To our knowledge this is the first time that a Guam Delegate has sought to clarify the role and responsibility of the Department of Interior to ensure the economic, social and political development of Guam. As Bordallo notes, federal funding for political status education is not without precedent. We support this bill because federal assistance for political status education has never been provided to Guam despite the legal and moral responsibility of the United States, as a signatory to the United Nation’s charter, to support the movement of its non-self-governing territories towards full self-government via a referendum consistent with international standards for decolonization.

• In recent years the United States Federal government has drifted towards disengagement and silence as to its position on territorial self-determination, and has both metaphorically and physically removed itself from its seat of obligation in the United Nations. This bill can be an important step towards helping the United States towards charting a clear and transparent course of action in order to fulfill its legal and moral responsibility as the administering power of a number of non-self-governing territories as mandated by the United Nations.

• To this end, we recommend that the bill be revised so that the Department of Interior may extend such funding and assistance to American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands, whose political status also remains unresolved.

• At present, the Guam initiated Commission on Decolonization for the Implementation and Exercise of Chamorro Self-Determination (1GCA Chapter 21) has yet to undertake its mission due to a lack of funding for a public information program.

• We believe that the unprecedented military buildup which has been initiated in Guam poses a serious threat to the realization of political self-determination. The plans contained in the bilateral agreement signed by the United States and Japan to relocate US Marines from Okinawa to Guam by 2014 makes the need for political status education funding necessary for this purpose, and a realistic time table for a self-determination plebiscite more critical than ever.

• We believe that the exercise of our human right to self-determination can only be achieved through the concerted and coordinated efforts of the people of Guam, our elected leaders, the federal government and the United Nations. To this end, we are mobilized and committed as non-governmental organizations to seek and support such multilevel action.

• While it is the obligation of the United States, as the administering power that placed Guam in its current political status, to fund a political status education program, it is important to note that the materials and parameters of the program must be made and decided by the people of Guam. The U.S. is mandated under international law to monetarily support and respect the self-determination of the peoples of its non-self governing territories; however, the U.S. must not impose its desired path on the people. Instead, we recommend that Congress make funding for this program available to an unbiased institution like the University of Guam, which can design and carry out an effective and relevant education program.

We commend Congresswoman Bordallo for placing this issue on the Congressional agenda at this critical moment in the shared history of the United States and our island.
We also urge Congresswoman Bordallo and all members of the Committee on Natural Resources to take every opportunity to impress upon all members of Congress the essential links between any plan for increased militarization of our island and the unresolved issue of political status.

In his 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama committed to supporting “full self-government and self-determination for the people of Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands, and their right to decide their future status.” While we believe that this bill can be a crucial first step towards realizing this commitment, as the United States moves to increase its military presence in this region of the world, it is imperative that the issue of self-determination and political status remain front and center, not an afterthought.

We believe the success of any plan to position Guam as “The Tip of the Spear” for US forward defense in the region must follow, not precede, resolution of Guam’s political status, and the fulfillment of the United States’ legal and moral obligation to promote the inalienable right to self-determination of the people of Guam. This will ensure that any militarization which takes place in Guam or other territories will be based on the principles of genuine security, and on respect for human needs and rights.

Si Yu’us Ma’åse

House OKs political status education bill

House OKs political status education bill

By Dionesis Tamondong • Pacific Daily News • November 20, 2009

The House Committee on Natural Resources yesterday unanimously approved a bill that would extend federal assistance to Guam and other territories for a political status education program.

"The full committee's approval of H.R. 3940 signals that political status education for non-self-governing territories is a priority for the committee that has jurisdiction over the territories," said Delegate Madeleine Bordallo, who sponsored the bill.

The measure authorizes the Department of the Interior secretary to extend grants and other assistance to facilitate a public education program on Guam's political status. Other forms of assistance include research, planning assistance, studies and agreements with federal agencies.

The bill was amended to extend the proposed federal assistance to American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Bordallo said.

"While each territory may approach this issue in a manner appropriate to their circumstances, we can all agree that there is a federal responsibility to assist the territories in self-determination, and that this process cannot be successful without a robust political status education component," she said.

Guam remains under the 1950 Organic Act model of territorial administration, with limited local powers of self-government over the civil affairs of the territory. Efforts to pursue greater self-government and a permanent political status have failed.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Governance Expert Discusses Guam’s Future Self-Determination

Governance Expert Discusses Guam’s Future Self-Determination

17 November 2009

Analysis by Maria Rodriguez, International Correspondent
Washington, D.C., Nov 16 (OTNS)

International Advisor on Democratic Governance Dr. Carlyle Corbin advised the Chamoru people of Guam (Guahan) that the political evolution of the remaining sixteen non self-governing territories, including the US-administered territory of Guam, should continue to be examined within the context of international law and principles, and is no different than the case of any other territory formally listed by the United Nations.


Corbin offered this assessment during the keynote address on “Self-Determination, Globalization and Militarisation: Thoughts on Non Self-Governing Territories in the 21st Century” delivered last week at the University of Guam Lecture Hall in Mangilao, Guam. Corbin, an international advisor on governance, was formerly the US Virgin Islands Minister of State for External Affairs and the territory’s representative to the United Nations. The President of the University and former Guam Delegate to Congress Dr. Robert Underwood provided the formal introduction to the evening event.

In his address, Dr. Corbin indicated that Articles 1 and 55 of the United Nations Charter serve to confirm the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination, while Article 11 provided the international legal mandate for decolonisation. He noted that “relevant international conventions, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, along with the International Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are among the applicable international instruments in the decolonisation process."

The governance advisor, who has served as an independent expert to the annual United Nations decolonisation seminars in the Pacific and Caribbean since the 1990s confirmed that the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly provided further legislative authority for political and constitutional evolution. He has referred to the lack of progress in decolonisation implementation as the “Achilles heel of the United Nations.”

Corbin’s intensive ten-day lecture tour in Guam focused on the political and constitutional evolution of the US-administered territories. The visit coincided with the introduction of legislation introduced in the US House of Representatives by Guam Delegate to the US Congress Madeleine Bordallo which seeks US funding for a public education program on self-determination for the territory. Delegate Bordallo is the Chair of the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife.

The visit by the international expert followed a trip to Guam and the neighboring Northern Mariana Islands by a Congressional delegation last August when the Chairman of the full House Committee on Natural Resources Nick Rahall expressed support for a self-determination process for Guam. Delegate Bordallo’s proposed measure for federal funding would have to be approved by the full US House of Representatives and Senate as a separate bill, or attached to another legislative proposal, and subsequently signed by the US President Barak Obama.

Corbin was the independent expert to United Nations missions to the Atlantic/Caribbean territories of Bermuda, and to the Turks and Caicos Islands in 2005 and 2006, respectively, but the visit to Guam was not directly related to any specific United Nations activity. He did indicate that he would offer any relevant findings on the state of the self-determination process in the territory to the relevant United Nations bodies, as appropriate.

He explained in an extensive interview immediately before his departure from the Pacific that a major function of his visit to Guam was to provide some insights on the United Nations self-determination and decolonisation processes through a series of lectures at the University of Guam, and to engage students and faculty in Social Justice and History classes of the university in interactive discussion. He described the dialogue with the undergraduate students and faculty as “intellectually stimulating given their heightened sense of awareness of the need for the future political evolution of Guahan, as well as other territories in the wider Pacific region.”

During his visit, the international advisor also met with Acting Governor Judith Won Pat and members of the Guam Legislature, along with Delegate Bordallo’s Senior Policy Advisor Joaquin Perez, for informal discussions on the international procedures on self-determination, and on various means by which the territory could accelerate the process in view of the Congressional legislation and planned US military build-up in the territory.
Corbin indicated that “further militarisation should not be permitted to distract the territory from pursuing self-determination which remains an inalienable right under international law, and recognised by all member states of the United Nations.”

Corbin also regarded favourably the move by Virgin Islands Delegate to Congress Donna Christensen who has asked for Virgin Islands inclusion in the self-determination legislation which provides assistance for public education in the area of self-determination. The Virgin Islands interest in the measure comes as that territory awaits a decision of its territorial court on whether its draft constitution adopted last May by its Fifth Constitutional Convention would be permitted to go forward to the US Congress for consideration following objections to certain provisions of the draft by the territory’s present elected governor. The President of the Convention requested United States and United Nations assistance for a public education on the territory’s draft constitution during a presentation to the United Nations Special Political and Decolonisation Committee last October.

Corbin, who served as the international advisor to the Virgin Islands Fifth Constitutional Convention, noted that the issue of a permanent political status for the Virgin Islands would remain unresolved even if the territorial court ultimately provides for Congressional review of the draft constitution. “This is the case,” he indicated, “since the constitution to replace the territory’s Revised Organic Act of 1954 would be based on the present territorial status, and it is precisely the democratic deficiencies inherent in the prevailing status which do not provide for a full measure of self-government.” He noted that the territory of Guam is governed by a similar Organic Act, and a constitution based on that status would be viewed in a similar light.

Corbin went on to call for the inclusion of American Samoa in the legislation, as well, especially since that territory “was engaged in a proactive approach in addressing political status and constitutional evolution following its 2007 report of the American Samoa Future Political Status Study Commission of American Samoa.” He recalled that the full Committee on Natural Resources of the US House of Representatives has already adopted the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 last July providing for a “federally-sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico,” a US-administered commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the Caribbean.

Corbin indicated that the measure regarding Puerto Rico was introduced by Commonwealth Resident Commissioner to the US House of Representatives Pedro Pierluisi, and “sets forth that if the territory votes in referendum to remain in the present status it would have to be consulted again at regular intervals.” The measure is now before the full House of Representatives for consideration.

The advisor noted that under the legislative proposal “if Puerto Ricans vote for a decolonizing option, then the people would vote on the alternatives of independence, free association with the United States or becoming an integrated state of the United States.” He suggested that this approach was consistent with the 2005 and 2007 White House reports on Puerto Rico which called for a similar referendum process, and which identified and provided “parametres for the options, even as the supporters of the legitimacy of the status quo option argue vociferously against the measure which they feel denigrates the prevailing commonwealth status which has been in effect since 1952.”

According to Corbin, “the autonomy exercised by Puerto Rico in its commonwealth status - even as it has been re-defined by successive Washington administrations as lesser autonomous than originally envisaged - was an important interim step in acquiring the necessary capacity to assume real self-government under a valid free association arrangement as defined by Resolution 1541 (XV) of the United Nations General Assembly - if the people choose to go that way.”

He also indicated that key to the Bordallo legislation for Guam self-determination “is the very fact that international law and principles serve as its backdrop and political rationale – a recognition which is usually absent in the rationale for earlier proposed measures on self-determination for the territories, but is nevertheless consistent with the Pierluisi legislation on Puerto Rico self-determination.”

A featured activity of Dr. Corbin’s stay in Guam was a day-long strategic planning workshop on “Chamoru Self-Determination” which was convened by the Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice in conjunction with the Division of Social Work of the University of Guam. The session examined in detail the United Nations review process of each territory undertaken at UN headquarters in New York, as well as through its human rights/self-determination component in Geneva.

He advised during the workshop that the UN General Assembly had consistently confirmed that the self-determination process leading to decolonisation was a fundamental human right, “even as many territories may not be as aware of this fact as much as they might.” In this connection, the workshop had benefit of the legal analysis of Chamoru attorney Julian Aguon on a dual legal strategy for the achievement of self-determination encompassing the decolonisation and indigenous rights areas of focus, as set forth in Aguon’s 2008 University of Hawaii Law Review article. The workshop also utilised the United Nations declarations on Decolonisation, and on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, respectively, as key components of the legislative authority for self-determination. Corbin regarded the session as “very dynamic and necessarily interactive in its approach.”

Regarding the future status of the remaining territories, Corbin surmised that a number of them may be well prepared to move towards full independence, or political integration with their present administering power “assuming on the one hand the larger country would agree to the integration of a smaller and culturally distinct jurisdiction, and on the other hand assuming that the people of the territory are willing to agree to an irreversible political arrangement which may have the effect of subordinating their culture to that of the larger country in which it would integrate.” He emphasised that political integration was, in fact, one of the three United Nations-recognised status options of political equality providing for the full measure of self-government for the people of the territory, but he posed the question of whether “cultural subservience” would be worth the price.

Corbin offered that the model of political integration of some territories with a neighboring independent country - where cultural norms might be more compatible - had not been sufficiently explored “owing perhaps to political rivalries and the result of external factors.” “Ironically,” as he stated “remaining in the existing dependency status has its own implications for cultural, as well as political, minoritisation.”

He also referred to the “possibility of integration between two neighboring territories, as has been recently suggested for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. He noted that such an approach “would certainly meet culturally affinity considerations,” and indicated that “the exact form of the political status of the merged entity would have to be addressed to ensure that the new arrangement would be “politically valid and sustainable.”

On the whole, Corbin suggested that, in most cases, “as many territories evolve politically from dependency governance to more autonomous arrangements, new models of shared autonomy will necessarily have to be created, perhaps building on existing autonomous modes of governance like Greenland and the Faroe Islands, in self-governing political status arrangements with Denmark; the Cook Islands and Niue in free association with New Zealand; or even the former United Nations trust territories of the Pacific Islands which emerged into a particular free associated statehood model with the United States largely with a distinct military strategic dimension.”

In moving forward, the advisor cautioned that territories should be wary of the “sustainability of arrangements” such as the commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands in what turned out in the end as a “far less autonomous political status than originally envisaged by the islanders in the Commonwealth agreement.”

On the issue of militarization of the territories, the self-determination expert submitted that “the necessary negotiating power to influence its nature and extent, as well as in determining just compensation for land use, toxic clean-up and the like, is lacking in a politically deficient non self-governing territorial status where the authority by an administering power is exercised unilaterally, even as varying degrees of consultation might be possible.” He cited the aftermath of the military departure from the islands of Vieques and Culebra (Puerto Rico), as well as from the British territory of Bermuda, as examples of territories where the environmental and other impacts continue to be addressed years after.

On the issue of globalisation, Corbin pointed to “the need for more political autonomy of the territories in order to engage the international marketplace, as well as to access international technical and other assistance such as that offered through borrowing membership in regional development banks.” He pointed to the British territories in the Caribbean which have a certain degree of integration in regional economic and other institutions as evidence of their capacity to more effectively engage the international system, even as their political dependency arrangements are subject to unilateral abolishment, as in the case of the Caribbean territory of the Turks and Caicos Islands whose government was “unilaterally dismantled by the British through extra-constitutional means.” He noted that the United States is significantly less flexible in providing sufficient political space for the territories under its administration to join regional and other international institutions, “even as the terms of reference of many of these bodies provide for the participation of territories.”

“In the final analysis,” Corbin indicated, “each territory has the right to make its own decision in exercise of the right to self-determination based on its own unique set of conditions, which in the case of Guam is quite immediate in view of the immense demographic changes on the horizon as a result of further militarisation.” In other cases,” he said, “the scenario may appear less immediate, but gradual erosion of political power coupled with steady population growth make the situation no less uncertain.”

To address the issue of the future self-determination of the non self-governing territories comprehensively, the international expert called for an independent review of any progress which has been made in each of the remaining Pacific and Caribbean territories, and recommended that the territorial universities be intricately involved since the United Nations had not fulfilled its mandate to undertake such analyses.

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.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

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.

Guam Delegate Introduces Self-Determination Bill

Guam Delegate Introduces Self-Determination Bill

OPENING STATEMENT
HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS, OCEANS AND WILDLIFE LEGISLATIVE HEARING
ON H.R. 3940

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Today, we convene to discuss an issue of great importance to the people of Guam and to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources: that of appropriately enabling the Executive Branch to help resolve the question of Guam’s political status in a manner that would be consistent with the aspirations of the people of Guam.

The “territorial clause” in Article Four of the United States Constitution vests with the Congress the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territories of the United States. Recommendations as to the exercise of such plenary authority by the Congress rest with this Committee.

As a member of the United Nations, the United States also assumes by virtue of Article 73 of the United Nations Charter the international obligation to develop self-government and to take due account of the political aspirations of the people of her territories.

Mindful of these responsibilities we resume today a discussion that involves the political history and future of Guam.

The people of Guam call home an island that now has been under the United States Flag as an unincorporated territory for over 111 years. Guam, like her sister territory Puerto Rico, was ceded to the United States from Spain upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris settling the Spanish-American War in 1898.

For the first 45 years of United States rule, the Department of the Navy administered Guam. Shortly after United States Armed Forces returned to regain control of Guam ending a 32-month occupation by Imperial Japan during the Second World War, administrative authority for the territory was transferred to the Department of the Interior where it remains today.

In 1950, Congress also passed the Organic Act of Guam conferring United States citizenship on the people of Guam and providing the territory with a limited form of self-government. It is under the Organic Act that the Secretary of the Interior exercises his administrative authority for Guam.

Today, Guam, like American Samoa and the United States Virgin Islands, is listed by the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory, and its political status remains a matter for Congress to address.

After over a decade of earnest and diligent effort toward defining a new political relationship between Guam and the United States that gained the attention of the Executive Branch and that took the form of legislation introduced in the 100th through the 105th Congresses, the political aspirations of the people of Guam for such status were never realized. As a result, a plebiscite affording the people of Guam an opportunity to express their views on status was authorized by local law but remains unscheduled.

I introduced H.R. 3940 for the purposes of best positioning the Department of the Interior to help the Government of Guam in its process of preparing for such a plebiscite. H.R. 3940 would authorize the extension of grants and other forms of assistance by the Department of the Interior to the Government of Guam for the express purpose of facilitating a public education program regarding various political status options.

The education of the public as to viable status options is essential to the exercise of self-determination and to the expression of a people’s political aspirations. My bill is not meant to steer the course in one direction over another with regard to any particular status option nor is it meant to assert direct Congressional involvement in this process. Ultimately, Congress should remain ready and obligated to respond to the desires of the people of Guam on the question of status.

I remain committed to and ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the efforts of the Governor of Guam and the Guam Legislature in providing for an opportunity for the people of Guam to express their desired political status. Through the testimony and discussion today we can gauge where the Government of Guam is in this process and assess the views of the Administration as to the role it believes is appropriate for it to assume in this process and for which it may be capable of fulfilling.

Lastly, I thank my colleagues representing each of the other territories for cosponsoring H.R. 3940. Mrs. Christensen of the Virgin Islands has already requested my support for amending this bill, should it move forward in the legislative process, to also authorize such assistance for the Government of the Virgin Islands.

Following this hearing, we shall continue our efforts with respect to this subject area and evaluate amending H.R. 3940 to encompass the other non-self-governing territories based on our discussion today. With that, we look forward to hearing and reviewing the testimony that will be formally submitted today.

Sunday, November 08, 2009

UN advisor tells Guam to stay focused

UN advisor tells Guam to stay focused

Monday, 09 November 2009 04:32 by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff

THE military buildup should not distract Guam from its quest to achieve self-rule, according to Dr. Carlyle Corbin, United Nations advisor and expert on political self-determination.

“I think that the issue of the military is a reality,” Corbin said. “What is important is that it does not detract from the natural evolution of the territory to be self-governing and that the self-determination process will not be inordinately affected by what is taking place.”

Corbin discussed self-determination issues at the Chamorro Summit Workshop III on Saturday. The program was entitled “Chamorro Self-Determination: Strategically Planning for our Future.”

The workshops, hosted through the cooperation of the Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice and UOG’s Division of Social Work, focused on local efforts to achieve self determination relative to processes of the United Nations. Corbin addressed military initiatives amid efforts to achieve full self governance.

Additionally, Corbin stated governments that possess a firm base and more permanent status may possibly have greater opportunities to influence and negotiate with the military. He emphasized the importance of this aspect as a part of achieving self-determination.

Corbin told the Variety that “The U.N. essentially serves as the basis of authority for territories to move from colonial or dependency status to that of full self-governance.”

Additionally, the U.N. advisor explained the U.N. is the organization which “focuses intents and provides the parameters for moving forward” and that the UN has a listing of non-self governing territories that are placed by the countries which “administer them.”

The U.S. placed many of these territories on that list back in 1946. While a number of them have been removed by achieving self government; the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, New Caledonia and many others remain.

“My role was really to bring information on some of the experiences that I’ve had working with on the issue of self determination on behalf of my own territory, the U.S. Virgin Islands. Our relationship with the United States is virtually identical,” Corbin explained.

“We have an organic act, you have an organic act. We go through the United Nations; we fall on the same list of non-self governing territories. All of those things make it very important to engage one another.”

Friday, November 06, 2009

Political status education program in House bill

Political status education program in House bill

By Dionesis Tamondong • Pacific Daily News • November 7, 2009

Guam's political status will likely be decided by a new generation of Guamanians, and they need to be educated about their options, Guam's governor and legislative speaker said in support of a House bill that would extend federal assistance to Guam for a political status education program.

The House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife held a hearing yesterday in Washington, D.C., on H.R. 3940. The measure, by Guam Delegate Madeleine Bordallo, authorizes the U.S. Department of the Interior secretary to extend grants and other assistance to facilitate a public education program on Guam's political status. Other forms of assistance include research, planning assistance, studies and agreements with federal agencies.

Gov. Felix Camacho testified at the hearing, saying the measure is a good start in allowing Guam's electorate to make an educated decision on their political identity.

"For the record, I believe that the people of Guam will choose a political relationship that brings Guam closer to the United States, and maybe one day, our brothers and sisters throughout the Marianas," according to Camacho's written testimony.

Speaker Judith Won Pat, in her testimony submitted to the committee, said she was concerned the bill didn't have an appropriation to carry out the mandates of the bill. She suggested a direct appropriation from Congress to the Interior Department be included.

Won Pat also urged quick passage of the bill in light of the population boom expected from the military buildup.

"This (buildup) will ultimately dilute even further the pool of eligible indigenous voters, leaving the native inhabitants, the Chamorros, a minority in their own homeland and thus, denying the Chamorros the opportunity to truly voice their political desire," she wrote.

Guam remains under the 1950 Organic Act model of territorial administration, with limited local powers of self-government over the civil affairs of the territory. Efforts to pursue greater self-government and a permanent political status have failed.

Thursday, November 05, 2009

PBS National Broadcast - At Last!

PBS National Broadcast - At Last!

Monday, November 2, 2009



Some good news to report: last week, NETA agreed to pick up The Insular Empire for a national PBS feed. What this means is that sometime in January or (more likely) February, 2010, The Insular Empire will go out on NETA's satellite feed to most of the PBS stations in the American Public TV system.

However - and this is where you, dear reader, fit in - it's up to the individual stations whether or not they choose to grab the show and air it. So if we want this film to have a truly national broadcast, it's going to be up to us to make sure it happens - by letting our PBS stations know that we want to see The Insular Empire on Public TV. As soon as I have a feed date from NETA, I will be posting a letter here that you can print out and send directly to your PBS stations, telling them about the show and urging them to air it.

So stay tuned for more info to come...

Thanks, Si Yu'us maase, and Olomwaay for your continued support!

Monday, October 12, 2009

Guam and Its Three Empires

Guam and Its Three Empires

Few peoples in the world have had continued colonial status for the past 340 years. However, the Chamorro people can claim this unfortunate distinction. It all began when Ferdinand Magellan, and his three small ships stumbled upon the Mariana Islands March 13, 1521. Totally exhausted, sick with scurvy and half-starved, Magellan and his crew were fed and the ship’s stores replenished. Magellan stayed just long enough to take vengeance on the islanders’ for their theft of his ship’s skiff, and, reportedly, carve out human entrails for his sick crew.

It was a tragic beginning to colonization for the Chamorros.

Spanish take charge

Because of the Chamorros’ perceived aggressive ways, Magellan was not interested in claiming the islands for Spain. Sailing out of New Spain (Mexico), Miguel Lopez de Legazpi, a prosperous landowner from Mexico City, officially took Guam as a formal possession of Spain in 1565. But a continuous Spanish colonial presence did not begin on Guam until 1668, after King Philip IV of Spain approved Father Diego Luis de San Vitores’, S.J., mission to Guam. San Vitores needed several years of heavy-duty politicking and persuading to get his vision funded. For this he depended on Queen Mariana and her Jesuit confessor, Father J. E. Nithard.

Fr. San Vitores was Guam’s first governor (head of colony) and his main order of business was, of course, to Christianize the Chamorros. This led to the priest’s murder in 1672 by Chief Matapang and sixteen years of Chamorro resistance that was brutally put down by Spanish force of arms.

Three priests—Frs. Francisco Solano, Francisco Ezquerra, and Peter Coemans—followed San Vitores as head of colony till 1674 when the first military man, Captain Damian de Esplana, originally assigned to the Philippines was stranded on Guam. Because of his military rank, the Jesuits requested Esplana to serve as head of the mission.

It was not until 1681 that Captain Antonio Saravia was appointed the first official Military Head Commander (later governor) of Guam upon the authority of King Charles II of Spain. One of Saravia’s first acts was to persuade all the Chamorro leaders, then loyal to Spain, to take and sign an oath of allegiance. They promised to “abide by any law which His Majesty might be pleased to impose upon us.” This show of loyalty was celebrated with cannon and musket fire, shouts, and triton trumpet shell blasts. For the next 217 years and fifty-some foreign governors, the Chamorros would live as both citizens and subjects of Spain.

In 1684, after sixteen years of war, the Spanish had largely subdued the Chamorros and imposed a governing structure. A network of dirt tracks connected five districts each with a pueblo, or main village, and church. A priest and a soldier were assigned to each pueblo. Leading Chamorros were identified and designated as principales. The principales were assigned some village duties and used to persuade all the Chamorros in the surrounding area to take up residence in the main village.

The village priest headed both the church and school with upkeep being done by Chamorros. In 1680 Guam had nine priests and three lay brothers and a population of about 7,000. This was a considerable reduction from the 50,000 estimated at San Vitores’ arrival. The population, reduced by the Spanish-Chamorro War, was further reduced by epidemics in 1688 and 1693 that began from diseases brought by Spanish ships.

The 217 years of Spanish colonial rule on Guam was theocratic and autocratic. Toward the end of that period, however, a royal order of 1885 introduced an element of village-level democracy. The order allowed free use of crown land by Chamorros and the election of local officials called gobernadorcillo, or mayor, from among the principalia class. This was a major change for the islands, with elected officials replacing appointed ones.
Americans were next

Such a change, important as it was, had no impact on the continued decline of Spain’s empire, by 1898 but a shadow of its former self. Aggressive and ambitious, the United States had established itself as a player in the arena of world geopolitics. Irritated by Spain’s autocratic rule of Cuba and the mysterious explosion that destroyed the battleship, USS Maine, then in Havana’s harbor, the U.S. declared war on Spain in April 1898.

In June, Captain Henry Glass quickly took Guam and sailed on to the Philippines. In August a protocol was signed ending the fighting and in December the Treaty of Paris was agreed to whereby the U.S paid $20 million reparations for all the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The transfer of Guam’s sovereignty did not involve the Chamorros and other than the assignment to the U.S. Congress the power to determine the civil rights and political status of the Chamorros, there was no explicit obligation placed on the U.S. to cultivate self-government or improve the political, social, or economic well-being of the indigenous people. The authority to administer Guam was soon transferred to the U.S. Navy, whose appointed governors would assume complete and unquestioned authority of Guam and its people. From the beginning, Guam was and still is but a piece of real estate needed by the American empire for its strategic purposes.

Guam’s first U.S. Naval governor arrived in August 1899 and the last one ended his term when the Organic Act was signed in 1949. As with the Spanish, American military rule was autocratic, the one-man rule of a commanding naval officer. Be that as it may, individual naval governors took initiatives to enlarge Chamorro participation in government.

Governor Roy Smith (1916-1918) established the first Guam Congress. This group of thirty-four members was made up of village commissioners, deputy commissioners and other prominent Chamorros, all appointed by the governor. However, the “legislators” were told in no uncertain terms that they were merely an advisory body with no authority to debate political rights or status issues.

Guam’s greatest naval governor was Willis W. Bradley, 1929-1931. Bradley worked to forward recommendations to Washington, D.C. that Guam’s people be granted U.S. citizenship and a bill of rights. While his efforts were ignored by U.S. leadership, he went ahead and established Guam citizenship and a Guam Bill of Rights. He reconstituted the Guam Congress as a bicameral elected body and called for the direct election of village commissioners. However, the Navy brass in Washington was not happy with Bradley’s initiatives in the area of expanded civil rights for Guam’s people and recalled him at the end of his term.
World War II brought Japanese

U.S. naval rule of Guam was violently interrupted by the 1941 attack of the Empire of Japan’s forces. The Imperial Japanese Navy’s 54th Naval Defense Guard ruled Guam for the purpose of establishing the Greater East-Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. This ideology was intended to liberate Asian peoples from European colonialism and establish one political and economic bloc centered on Japan.

Japan’s grand vision resulted in repressive and harsh rule. Japanese forces would occupy Guam for nearly three years between December 1941 and July 1944. Attempts to implement the sphere ideology came crashing to the ground as an occupying military government had to immediately transform itself into a fighting force which was crushed in less than a month by the overwhelming power of the U.S. military. Guam then reverted to the American empire.
Americans come back

What remained steady and increasingly persistent both before and after the Pacific War was the Chamorro call for political rights and civilian rule. This began in 1901 with a petition calling for a permanent civilian government. In 1917 at the opening of the first Guam Congress, Tomas Calvo Anderson asserted:

It is high time that there be granted to the people, respectful, loyal and devoted to the Great American nation, the same rights that have been granted to the different states, territories and possessions… Our ideals are realized by the giving of that which by right should be granted, that is to say, the defining of the status of the Chamorro people.

Again in 1926 and 1929, the Guam Congress adopted and endorsed petitions for the grant of U.S. citizenship to Chamorros. A few years later, the Guam Recorder of 1933 contained two statements, one by congressmen Manuel F. Ulloa and Dr. Ramon M. Sablan and a second by Guam Postmaster James Underwood calling for American citizenship. In response, naval Governor Captain George A. Alexander endorsed this effort by transmitting the citizenship petition to the White House signed by 2,000 Chamorros.

Dead silence from Washington D.C.

In spite of dead silence from Washington, D.C. in response to all these petitions, the push for citizenship and civil rights continued with the efforts of local political leaders and men of prominence. In 1936, Baltazar J. Bordallo and Francisco Baza Leon Guerrero made the long trip to Washington using donations from school children and their own funds to personally lobby the U.S. Congress for a citizenship bill. Introduced into both the 75th and 76th Congresses of 1937 and 1939, the bill eventually failed because of navy opposition and the specter of war.

After the war—one during which Chamorros demonstrated great loyalty to the U.S. – some 600 Guamanian war veterans could and did become naturalized American citizens. In a January 1947 resolution the Guam Congress requested Governor Charles A. Pownall (a vice admiral) to ask the U.S. Congress to grant American citizenship to Guamanians and pass organic legislation establishing civilian government. The Navy Department postponed action on this request while it awaited the results of the Hopkins Study concerning Guam and American Samoa. That study had been commissioned by President Harry S. Truman’s secretary of defense to inspect and recommend changes in the government of American Samoa and Guam as well as one completed by a cabinet level committee.

Both groups made nearly identical recommendations. They proposed that congressional legislation provide civilian government via an organic act, American citizenship, a bill of rights, and local legislative powers be established by law. Friends of Guam on the U.S. mainland, including former Governor Willis W. Bradley, then a congressman from California, were lobbying for these changes and making Guam’s plight a national issue.

However, what really broke the navy opposition and got President Truman’s attention was the 1949 walkout of the Guam Congress over a serious disagreement with Governor Charles A. Pownall. Besides refusing to grant subpoena powers to the congress — the reason for the walkout — he also declared their seats vacant and stated that he would fill them by appointment.

The walkout and the heavy military hand were reported in both The New York Times and The Washington Post and caught Truman’s attention. In early 1949 the president ordered the Department of Interior to draft an organic act for Guam, approved it in May, and had it introduced into the 81st Congress. Hearings were held on Guam in late 1949 that led to numerous changes to the draft. Even the navy testified in favor of the organic legislation, after all it already had about thirty-six percent of Guam’s land under its control.

Organic Act signed

In mid-1950, the U.S. Congress passed the Guam Organic Act and President Truman signed it into law on August 1. Only one Chamorro was present at this event. This was former Guam Congressman Carlos P. Taitano, then an American citizen and student at the Georgetown University Law School. Taitano had been the key contact to the national press that got Guam’s plight into the newspaper headlines. At a 1998 celebration of the forty-eighth anniversary of the act, he publicly stated that the approval of the Organic Act:

...was the beginning of the decolonization of Guam. Unfortunately, almost half a century after… the Chamorros are still trying to set up an island government without the bounds or restraints of colonialism. It is our hope that before another fifty years have passed… we would see the passage of the Guam Commonwealth Act, now before the U.S. Congress.

The major provisions of Guam’s Organic Act provided American citizenship; a bill of rights; a civilian administration and local three branch government that included a civilian executive that retained many of the powers of the former naval governor and who, just as under the U.S. Navy, would be appointed by the U.S. president, a 21-seat unicameral legislature, and a judiciary.

The act also identified and reserved over thirty-six percent of Guam’s land for U.S. military use and declared Guam to be an unincorporated Territory of the U.S. The act has been amended numerous times by Congress since 1950; notable amendments included those for an elected governor and lieutenant governor, an elected delegate to the U.S. Congress, and most recently, a Guam Supreme court as a separate and pinnacle body of the island judiciary system. Although these changes improved the Organic Act, the government was not yet one of or by the people.

Still under United Nations watch

Chamorros certainly accepted the 1950 act as a large political step forward since it lifted the heavy yolk of military rule. Nevertheless, they did not have an opportunity to vote on it. Strictly speaking, an act of self-determination had not been taken and Guam remains on the United Nation’s list of non-self-governing territories. As an unincorporated territory, Guam continued as a strategically located piece of real estate belonging to the American empire.

The Organic Act of 1950 was a major step forward for Guam’s home rule and a model for the rest of the Pacific at that time. The act greatly accelerated political activity with the formal establishment of the Democratic and Republican parties in the 1960s, fierce competition (bi-annually) for legislature seats, and beginning in 1970, battles for the governor and lieutenant governor offices (every four years). Control of the legislature and governorship has oscillated between the Republicans and Democrats, stimulated by dynamic personalities such as Democrat Ricardo J. Bordallo and Republican Joseph F. Ada. The 1998 gubernatorial contest between Democrat Carl Gutierrez, the incumbent, and Ada, attempting to make a political come-back, culminated in an unprecedented post-election controversy that made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States for final resolution in favor of Gutierrez in 1999.

The same excitement evolved in the heated 2002 race between former Congressman Robert Underwood and his running mate, Senator Tom Ada, as they went nose-to-nose with Senators Felix Camacho and Kaleo Moylan, the sons of Guam’s first elected governor and lieutenant governor. In 2002, the sons won, but it took some underhanded campaign maneuvers to pull off an upset. Camacho and Underwood faced off again in 2006 with different running mates. Camacho won again by a slim margin.

Other islands of Micronesia unshackled

In contrast to Guam’s “status of no status,” the island peoples of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) surrounding Guam were not shackled by the unincorporated territory doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Insular Cases. According to this doctrine, the U.S. Congress retains plenary authority over all unincorporated territories (such territories were not recognized as integral parts of the United States) and could decide which Constitutional protections and rights it might (or might not) extend to such territories. In contrast, the peoples of the TTPI were governed by the 1947 Trusteeship Agreement which, unlike the Treaty of Paris, clearly delineated obligations of the U.S. government that included “the development of the inhabitants of the trust territory toward self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of the trust territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned.”

Because of this fundamental difference in legal doctrine, the TTPI leaders could and did negotiate political status change with the U.S. on a more or less equal basis. In negotiations with the U.S., the TTPI leaders (excepting the Northern Mariana Islands) rejected both territorial status and commonwealth status. Finally, in the mid 1980s (1994 for Palau) the various TTPI entities approved and signed compacts of free association with the U.S. that resulted in political independence. In the case of the Northern Mariana Islands (also a part of the TTPI), the leadership there concluded a covenant agreement that established a commonwealth relationship with the U.S. in 1975.

All the while, the U.S. citizens on Guam stood by and watched amazed and even angered at how they were being ignored. Guam delegate to the U.S. Congress, Antonio Won Pat remarked:

Whatever the needs—whether real or imagined—of the Pentagon in the western Pacific, the willingness of Washington to deal so generously with non-citizens while denying their fellow Americans equal treatment can only be viewed with suspicion and resentment by the people of Guam.

Ford approves Commonwealth but plan shelved

The highest reaches of the U.S. government got wind of this suspicion and resentment. In response, the National Security Council commissioned a study in September 1973 of U.S. national objectives, policies and programs for Guam. After the resignation of President Richard Nixon, President Gerald Ford reviewed the study, approved it, and directed that:

The U.S. negotiator should seek agreement with Guamanian representatives on a commonwealth arrangement no less favorable than that which we are negotiating with the Northern Marianas.

President Ford’s directive of February 1, 1975, issued through Secretary State Henry A. Kissinger was never carried out and the Guam study and the directive remained secret for nearly thirty years. Furthermore, the Department of Interior essentially subverted President Ford’s directive by never informing Guam’s political leaders of the study or presidential action on it.

Throughout the period 1980-1997, Chamorro leaders embarked on a serious effort to improve Guam’s political status through the Commission on Self-Determination that was established by the Guam Legislature in 1980. Totally unaware of President Ford’s directive of 1975, the Commission wrote a draft commonwealth act that was approved by the Guam electorate. The draft was introduced into every session of the U.S. Congress during the tenures of delegates Vicente Blaz (1985-1992) and Robert Underwood (1993-2002).

Guam’s commonwealth quest came to a standstill in 1997. At Congressional hearings on the act, John Garamendi, representing the Clinton Administration, rejected the provisions to do with Chamorro self-determination as well as immigration and labor control in the commonwealth bill. Congress remained uncommitted. At the present time, Guam’s government and people remain a creature of the Organic Act and a piece of property of the American empire. Speaking very recently about the Organic Act and political change, former Congressman Underwood summarized the U.S.-Guam situation in these words:

Today, I think people want the relationship between the federal and Guam governments defined so that it can’t be changed arbitrarily. We hope to increase our autonomy and enhance our participation in federal decision making in a way that enhances our economy as well as our autonomy.

By Donald R. Shuster, Ed.D.
For further reading

Leibowitz, Arnold H. Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relation. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1989.

McHenry, Donald F. Micronesia: Trust Betrayed New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1975.

Pacific Daily News, “Centennial Timeline,” June 21, 1998.

Rogers, Robert F. Destiny’s Landfall: A History of Guam. Honolulu:, University of Hawai`i Press, 1995.

Taitano, Carlos P. “American Citizenship: A Centennial Commemoration.” Keynote address at a public meeting during the centennial commemoration, Plaza de Espana, Hagåtña, GU, August 1, 1998.

“Trusteeship Agreement.” In the 1980 Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands 33rd Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: Department of State Publication 9181, 1981.

Underwood, Robert A. Brief remarks at a public meeting, the Guam Humanities Council Forum on the Organic Act, University of Guam College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences Lecture Hall, December 7, 2005.

Willens, Howard P. and Ballendorf, Dirk A. _The Secret Guam Study: How President Ford’s 1975 Approval of Commonwealth Was Blocked by Federal Officials. Mangilao, GU: University of Guam Richard F. Taitano Micronesian Area Research Center and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Division of Historic Preservation, 2004.

Friday, October 09, 2009

CNMI Descent for Self Government and Indigenous Rights

CNMI Descent for Self Government and Indigenous Rights (Part 2 of 7). By Oscar C. Rasa. September 30, 2009, MCV Studio, Saipan MP 96950

This is URGENT!













Thursday, August 13, 2009

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.”

Thursday, March 26, 2009

BREAKING NEWS: Former Guam Speaker Dies

Written by Patti Arroyo, Pacific News Center - Guam, Saipan, CNMI, Asia-Pacific
Thursday, 26 March 2009 06:06

Guam - His role in the quest for self-governance was crucial to calling attention to Guam’s fight to gain control from U.S. Navy rule. The famed Guam Congress walkout took place 60 years ago this month, and today Guam remembers Carlos P. Taitano, one of the assemblymen who led the charge.

Taitano passed away at his Los Angeles, California home on March 25th.

A news release says the former Guam speaker died peacefully, surrounded by his children Linda, Carl and Tyrone.

It was Carlos P. Taitano, a young assemblyman in the Guam Congress that reported to the media that they had walked out of meetings in defiance of the U.S. military rule over Guam, in effect leading to the signing of the Organic Act.

Carlos Pangilinen Taitano, dead at the age of 92.

Funeral arrangements are pending.

Thursday, March 05, 2009

60 years later, feds still lord over people of Guam

By Victoria-Lola M. Leon Guerrero • March 6, 2009


On March 5, 1949, members of the Guam Congress made history for resisting federal control over local governance. They adjourned their session and walked out on the premise that the people of Guam deserved the right to govern themselves. They made international headlines and helped the island attain some form of self-government with the Organic Act.

At the time of the walkout, Guam was under naval rule and the local government had no real power to govern the people. "Let us not hide behind doors, but let us come right out and tell our people that we cannot do things they wish, because we have somebody to tell us what to do," said then-Congressman Frank D. Perez on the day of the walkout.

Sixty years later, we sit idle as the history they fought repeats itself.

We have a federal judge ordering our local government to spend $1 million a week on the landfill, while two high schools share one campus, our only hospital struggles to meet the needs of its patients and our government employees live with the fear of looming pay cuts, payless paydays and layoffs.

We are also expected to meet the demands of the federal government as it expands its military presence on our island -- a decision that was made without our consent. This military buildup will make the native Chamorro people an extreme minority in our homeland, where we still haven't exercised our human right to self-determination.

And with construction for the buildup set to begin in a just over a year, our community is left with a long list of unanswered questions. At the top of the list is exactly how much money and resources will the people of Guam sacrifice to accommodate the infrastructural strain of a massive population boom and increased military presence?


(2 of 2)


As our island constantly takes on the burden of supporting the military and following federal orders, what do we lose in the process? Aren't we, the people of Guam, worthy of the dignity and right to govern ourselves and decide our future?

The recent battle over the landfill proves that the federal government still assumes it has ultimate control over the island. The federal judge stated in her order earlier this week that the federal court could have the power to raise our taxes and sell our assets, including the Chamorro Land Trust properties we fought hard for.

In response to the federal judge's statements, Speaker Judith Won Pat accurately made the connection to our history. "The court's actions remind me of the day(s) of the naval government, where we had no rights whatsoever," said the speaker.

During the days of the naval government, it was made explicit that the interests of the military would always take precedence over the needs of the people of Guam. For example, in a 1946 naval report to Washington it was written that, "The economic development (of Guam) must be geared to meet the demands of (Navy) service and service connected personnel, and cannot be geared to the financial, technical, or business ability of the Guamanian entrepreneur."

As the military buildup plays out, it is not hard to see how this is still the case. What worries me is that not enough people are making the historical connection, or fighting against it. In the case of the landfill, the governor has shown a clear lack of leadership as his office publicly ponders what to follow: local law or federal orders.

In order for us to change our fate, we must fight for our right to govern ourselves. It is time to follow in the bold footsteps taken by the Guam Congress 60 years ago, and celebrate the parts of our history that obligate us to fight for our land and our people. We must support leaders who are determined to put our island first, and not allow our people to be taken advantage of any longer.

Victoria-Lola M. Leon Guerrero, a middle school teacher, lives in Toto.

Monday, January 26, 2009

US govt: NMI changing its arguments

IN MOTION TO DIMISS FEDERALIZATION SUIT

By Kristi Eaton
Reporter

Monday, January 26, 2009

Lawyers for the U.S. government have once again asked a federal court to dismiss the CNMI's lawsuit against federalization, saying the Commonwealth has changed its argument from one of economic harm to a breach of self-governance.

Lawyers for the federal government filed the motion to dismiss before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday.

The CNMI first filed the lawsuit in September, and the U.S. government filed a motion to dismiss in December. The CNMI then filed their opposition to the motion earlier this month, with the federal government now giving their final reply.

In the motion to dismiss, the lawyers stated that the Commonwealth's initial argument for the lawsuit was economical, but now it is saying that provisions of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act harms their right to self-governance.

“The CNMI attempts in its opposition to reframe all of its alleged injuries as injuries to the CNMI's right to self-governance,” the motion stated. “However, this characterization does not square with the complaint, which is replete with allegation after allegation that the challenged provisions of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act...will allegedly inflict economic harm-all of which are conjectural and do not confer standing under Article III of the Constitution. The court should not accept the CNMI's last-minute recasting of the harms alleged as injuries to self-governance.”

Secondly, the lawyers wrote, the governor does not have authority to bring this action because CNMI law specifically states that the CNMI Attorney General is responsible for bringing any suit. In the earlier opposition, the CNMI stated that the Commonwealth-not the governor-is the plaintiff in the case.

However, the U.S. government said, the action was initiated, pursued and paid for by the Office of the Governor. Although the Office of the Attorney General was consulted before outside counsel Jenner & Block LLC was retained, as acting Attorney General Gregory Baka has publicly stated and was written in the opposition, “the Commonwealth is not a person or entity that can have 'consultations' with public officials on its own. The CNMI is a political entity, and the Commonwealth acts only when a public official having the authority to act on its behalf does so. The question is: Who acted on behalf of the CNMI in bringing this lawsuit?” the motion states.

Moreover, Howard Willens appears as special counsel to the governor, not as Assistant Attorney General as he has appeared in other cases, the U.S. government wrote. On Friday, the motion notes, Willens entered his appearance as special counsel to the Office of the Governor, not as an Attorney General for the case.

The provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that the CNMI takes offense at are actually meant to soften the potential hard effects of the sudden application of the law, the motion said.

“If the CNRA simply applied the immigration laws without a transition period-as it lawfully could have done, as even the CNMI appears to concede by agreeing that there is authority to apply Title 8 to the CNMI-then on the transition date, every alien in the CNMI (other than U.S. lawful permanent residents) would be unauthorized to work and immediately removable, because they would all simply be unauthorized aliens present without inspection and work authorization,” the motion stated. “The drafters recognized that such an effect would be unwanted and damaging, and took this into account.”

Lastly, the lawyers for the U.S. wrote, the court should dismiss the case because the CNMI cannot allege any facts supporting the relief claimed.

“The CRNA was an appropriate act of Congress because it is consistent with the Covenant,” according to the motion.