Self Determination is Liberation
Governor Eddie Baza Calvo
The Pacific Daily News
June 17, 2011
Editor's note: The following remarks will be delivered on Gov. Eddie Calvo's behalf to the United Nation's Special Committee on Decolonization.
Ladies and gentlemen, members of the United Nations, the people of Guam need your help. We are bearing a great burden. Colonialism has weighed down upon our people for nearly 500 years. This half millennium of external rule has taken its toll.
Our Chamorro ancestors came to Guam centuries before the Polynesians arrived in Hawaii. Our chiefs held law over the land before the kings of Europe. Our latte stones were built as the Mayans built their pyramids. Yet the only written history of this advanced and unique people are the accounts of foreigners -- of Spanish conquistadors and priests.
Our island suffered over 230 years of Spanish colonial rule. Chamorros were devastated by new diseases, war and oppression. After the Spanish-American War, the United States claimed Guam, and rule began under the naval government. Once again, Chamorros had no representation, and no say in their future.
Japan's foray into imperialism during World War II was especially brutal for Guam, when Chamorros suffered atrocities from the Japanese army. Our women were raped. Our men were beheaded. Chamorro families were marched into caves and exterminated like vermin.
After three years of pain and suffering, America finally stormed the beaches of our island on July 1944 to take back the island. The occasion is known as Liberation Day, but while we were liberated from slavery and war, the Chamorros were still suppressed under colonialism. One of Guam's liberators, a brave American, Darrell Doss, said it best:
"Fifty-nine years ago, on July 21, 1944, I and more than 57,000 Marines, soldiers and sailors came ashore on the beaches of Asan and Agat, and were honored to be referred to as 'liberators.' But in the end, we failed to accomplish what we had come to do -- liberate you. More correctly, our government failed both of us by not granting the people of Guam full citizenship. Another injustice is not allowing Guam to have equal say, as we in the states do, in governing your island home. Please remember, we men who landed on your shores July 21, 1944, shall never be fully satisfied until you are fully liberated."
Worse yet, the Chamorro people have yet to even receive reparations for the atrocities they suffered. The United States has already acknowledged the need to address wrongdoings during World War II, which is why Japanese-Americans who were forcibly removed from their homes during the war have been compensated. These reparations were justified.
Thousands of Japanese-Americans underwent forced internment, the motivations racist and ignorant. But what of our greatest generation on Guam? The Chamorros of World War II endured slavery, occupation, murder, and genocide. Yet the U.S. government is silent in its obligations to war reparations. Our island anxiously awaits the day when our people can receive the same amount of respect as fellow Americans who endured unimaginable evil during that time. The silence from the administering power on this issue reinforces the point that Guam can no longer remain a colony in perpetuity.
Ladies and gentlemen, for nearly half a millennium the Chamorro people have been unable to reach their full socio-economic potential because of our political status. Now, more than ever, it is important to move forward, while there are still Chamorros left to express our right to self-determination.
I am thankful our administering power, the United States, recognizes this right and need. The Obama administration has agreed to match local funding I have allocated for our decolonization efforts. The government of Guam is committed to a plebiscite. I personally would like to see a vote taken in the next General Election or the election after. What's most important is to make sure our Chamorros make an educated decision on the political status they want to move toward.
To say, "exercising this human right is long overdue" is a gross understatement. For far too long, the Chamorro people have been told to be satisfied with a political status that doesn't respect their wishes first. For far too long the native people of Guam have been dealing with inequality of government. We have been dealing with taxation without full representation, with quasi-citizenship and partial belonging.
Now it is time for us to realize our full political destiny, so we can take control and lead and live the way that is best for our people. I am urging this body to support our human rights as citizens of this world, to help us become citizens of a place -- of our place in this world.
Kao siña un ayuda ham ni' manChamoru. Siña un rikoknisa i direchon-måmi para dinitetminan maisa. Ayuda ham humago' i guinifen-måmi. Manespisiåt ham. Mambanidosu ham. ManChamoru ham.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Guam.
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Friday, July 22, 2011
Friday, January 15, 2010
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.
(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.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Second International Decade of Decolonization (to) End Unnoticed
Second International Decade of Decolonization (to) End Unnoticed
01 December 2009
América Latina en Movimiento
by Joyce van Genderen-Naar
30th November 2009
The Second International Decade of Decolonization is ending soon in 2010. The main conclusion is that two decades were not enough to resolve all decolonization issues, in contrary the process of self-determination leading to decolonization has become increasingly complex. Third and even more International Decades will be needed before all Non-Self-Governing Territories have attained self-determination.
The international mandate for decolonisation is a function of the UN Charter and UN resolutions on decolonisation are supported by all of the nations of the world, with regard to the international obligation to develop self-government and to take due account of the political aspirations of the people of their territories (article 73 of the United Nations Charter). But the implementation is politically sensitive and information has been scarce. Decolonization issues stay unnoticed.
The stocktaking took place during the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonization, organized on 12, 13 and 14 May in St. Kitts and Nevis (Caribbean) by the UN Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization (Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples). Recommendations were made to establish a mechanism for dialogue between local authorities in the Territories, administering Powers and the international community to facilitate the decolonization process.
There has to be more interaction and cooperation between the Special Committee and the administering Powers, by creating frameworks for dialogue between the Territories, the administering Powers and the Special Committee. The international community needs to work together and to remain engaged, guided by the political options available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories: free association with other independent States, full integration with political rights, or independence. It is important to focus more on the specific needs of each Territory in terms of their political and economic needs and assistance by the United Nations system.
Education and public outreach are crucial for decolonization, to enable the people concerned to make informed decisions regarding their future political status, to promote maturity and movement towards “appropriation of the own destiny”: “You cannot insist on your rights, unless you understand them.” Decisions on self-determination must be based on full information and education. In a message to the Seminar UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had urged the administering Powers, Non-Self-Governing Territories and the United Nations to continue working together to accelerate the process of eradicating colonialism.
He said that progress in this area will require close cooperation between all three actors. He noted that the right to self-determination must be taken into proper account in exploring how to accelerate the decolonization process for the remaining 16 UN listed non self-governing territories, namely the ten Overseas Countries and Territories of the UK (Anquilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean Sea; Falklands Islands (Malvinas) and St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean; Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific; Gibraltar in Europe); New Caledonia, Overseas Country and Territory of France in the Pacific; three territories of the USA: Virgin Island in the Caribbean, American Samoa and Guam in the Pacific; Tokelau, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand in the Pacific; Western Sahara, occupied by Morocco, in Africa.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was counting on the administering Powers in particular to discharge their obligations in a manner that promotes the well-being of the inhabitants of the territories within their responsibility. The interests of the peoples of the Territories have to be at the heart of all efforts.
The UN system will continue to assist the Non-Self-Governing Territories, in areas such as economic and social development, environmental sustainability, healthcare and good governance. Emerging challenges for the Non-Self-Governing Territories on their path towards decolonisation are the impact of climate change, the global economic and financial crisis, the role of regional cooperation, education and public awareness, the role of women, the empowerment of vulnerable people and the capacity for full self-government towards self-determination. Key elements in responding to the challenges of today are political maturity, economic sustainability, enhanced administrative capacity and strengthened regional cooperation.
Regional cooperation and regional arrangements offered important opportunities for many Non-Self-Governing Territories and contributed to the development of a strong regional identity and strengthened concrete functional cooperation in various areas of mutual interest. Important were the role of the United Nations regional commissions, such as the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and bodies like the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), as well as various United Nations specialized agencies.
In response to climate change, which had exposed the vulnerability of many Non-Self-Governing Territories, regional cooperation could play a crucial role in the field of disaster preparedness. The global economic crisis had further highlighted the importance of economic sustainability and diversification of the economic base in the Non-Self-Governing Territories through community-based development, the development of small and medium enterprises, promotion of micro-financing and employment-generating activities, and the empowerment of vulnerable groups.
In his closing statement on behalf of the host country, Delano Frank Bart, Permanent Representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis to the United Nations, characterized the seminar as “the penultimate event” in the course of the Decade. He said that with regard to the energy, food and financial crises, the Territories had been hit as hard as most countries, if not more, but that their concerns were often marginalized. “Our role is to ensure that all needs are met, especially the needs of those of us who are not governing themselves.” Highlighting the impact of climate change, he said that, of the 16 Territories under the Special Committee’s mandate, the majority were islands. Therefore, the concerns of small island developing States within the United Nations system were also the concerns of those Territories. They were among the most vulnerable and needed to be aware of the commitment of the international community to stand by them and “weather the storm together.”
Recalling that his country had recently celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary of independence, he said Saint Kitts and Nevis remembered the concerns of the pre-independence period. One needed the goodwill of all parties to resolve such issues, and the participants should, therefore, take away with them a determination to ensure that the day would come in the not-too-distant future, when the Special Committee’s work would bear fruit, and that the solutions found would be in the best interests of all concerned.
The recommendations of the St. Kitts Seminar have become the most recent chapter of the ever growing legislative authority on the self-determination of the territories. Some of the recommendations were included in the decolonisation resolutions adopted by the UN Fourth Committee in November 2009, and are expected to be approved by the General Assembly in December 2009. Implementation is an entirely separate matter, according to International Advisor on Democratic Governance Dr. Carlyle Corbin
GUAM’s self-determination bill
How important information and education are to the people of the Non-self Governing Territories and how essential to the expression of their political aspirations and self-determination, was shown on November 5, 2009, when the delegate of Guam Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, in the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife Legislative hearing on H.R. 3940, introduced a self-determination bill to support a public education program for the people of Guam regarding various political status options to express their desired political status.
Guam is a territory of the USA in the Pacific, that 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. Guam is listed by the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory. Despites all efforts towards defining a new political relationship between Guam and the United States, the political aspirations of the people of Guam for such status were never realized. A referendum affording the people of Guam an opportunity to express their views on status was authorized by local law but remains unscheduled. In November the US Congressional Committee approved the self-determination bill and assistance to the territories.
Dr. Corbin explained that there are two separate pieces of legislation - one bill for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands, and a second different bill for Puerto Rico, which is essentially a referendum bill which had been adopted by the same Committee earlier this year. The Puerto Rico measure does not address public education since they already have a very sophisticated process in place via their political parties. Both bills have been adopted by the substantive committee in one House of the US Congress so far. It still has to be adopted by the full House of Representatives, then by the US Senate and signed by the President. He anticipated that this would happen without too much difficulty since there is no new financial resources associated with either measure.
Dr. Corbin also made clear that the issue is not only between independence or not, but rather to chose one of the three political status option which provides for a full measure of self-government, namely independence, free association and integration. These are so recognised by the UN. Some member states which administer territories, such as the UK, have told its territories that offers neither integration nor free association to them, and the choice is either independence or remaining in a dependency status. This is unlike the Dutch Antilles which had achieved sufficient autonomy to be regarded as fully self-governing. This might change as the dismantling of the five islands will now yield a new less autonomous model for the two islands which have chosen in referendum to become separate countries within the Dutch Kingdom.
01 December 2009
América Latina en Movimiento
by Joyce van Genderen-Naar
30th November 2009
The Second International Decade of Decolonization is ending soon in 2010. The main conclusion is that two decades were not enough to resolve all decolonization issues, in contrary the process of self-determination leading to decolonization has become increasingly complex. Third and even more International Decades will be needed before all Non-Self-Governing Territories have attained self-determination.
The international mandate for decolonisation is a function of the UN Charter and UN resolutions on decolonisation are supported by all of the nations of the world, with regard to the international obligation to develop self-government and to take due account of the political aspirations of the people of their territories (article 73 of the United Nations Charter). But the implementation is politically sensitive and information has been scarce. Decolonization issues stay unnoticed.
The stocktaking took place during the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Decolonization, organized on 12, 13 and 14 May in St. Kitts and Nevis (Caribbean) by the UN Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization (Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples). Recommendations were made to establish a mechanism for dialogue between local authorities in the Territories, administering Powers and the international community to facilitate the decolonization process.
There has to be more interaction and cooperation between the Special Committee and the administering Powers, by creating frameworks for dialogue between the Territories, the administering Powers and the Special Committee. The international community needs to work together and to remain engaged, guided by the political options available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories: free association with other independent States, full integration with political rights, or independence. It is important to focus more on the specific needs of each Territory in terms of their political and economic needs and assistance by the United Nations system.
Education and public outreach are crucial for decolonization, to enable the people concerned to make informed decisions regarding their future political status, to promote maturity and movement towards “appropriation of the own destiny”: “You cannot insist on your rights, unless you understand them.” Decisions on self-determination must be based on full information and education. In a message to the Seminar UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had urged the administering Powers, Non-Self-Governing Territories and the United Nations to continue working together to accelerate the process of eradicating colonialism.
He said that progress in this area will require close cooperation between all three actors. He noted that the right to self-determination must be taken into proper account in exploring how to accelerate the decolonization process for the remaining 16 UN listed non self-governing territories, namely the ten Overseas Countries and Territories of the UK (Anquilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean Sea; Falklands Islands (Malvinas) and St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean; Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific; Gibraltar in Europe); New Caledonia, Overseas Country and Territory of France in the Pacific; three territories of the USA: Virgin Island in the Caribbean, American Samoa and Guam in the Pacific; Tokelau, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand in the Pacific; Western Sahara, occupied by Morocco, in Africa.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was counting on the administering Powers in particular to discharge their obligations in a manner that promotes the well-being of the inhabitants of the territories within their responsibility. The interests of the peoples of the Territories have to be at the heart of all efforts.
The UN system will continue to assist the Non-Self-Governing Territories, in areas such as economic and social development, environmental sustainability, healthcare and good governance. Emerging challenges for the Non-Self-Governing Territories on their path towards decolonisation are the impact of climate change, the global economic and financial crisis, the role of regional cooperation, education and public awareness, the role of women, the empowerment of vulnerable people and the capacity for full self-government towards self-determination. Key elements in responding to the challenges of today are political maturity, economic sustainability, enhanced administrative capacity and strengthened regional cooperation.
Regional cooperation and regional arrangements offered important opportunities for many Non-Self-Governing Territories and contributed to the development of a strong regional identity and strengthened concrete functional cooperation in various areas of mutual interest. Important were the role of the United Nations regional commissions, such as the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and bodies like the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), as well as various United Nations specialized agencies.
In response to climate change, which had exposed the vulnerability of many Non-Self-Governing Territories, regional cooperation could play a crucial role in the field of disaster preparedness. The global economic crisis had further highlighted the importance of economic sustainability and diversification of the economic base in the Non-Self-Governing Territories through community-based development, the development of small and medium enterprises, promotion of micro-financing and employment-generating activities, and the empowerment of vulnerable groups.
In his closing statement on behalf of the host country, Delano Frank Bart, Permanent Representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis to the United Nations, characterized the seminar as “the penultimate event” in the course of the Decade. He said that with regard to the energy, food and financial crises, the Territories had been hit as hard as most countries, if not more, but that their concerns were often marginalized. “Our role is to ensure that all needs are met, especially the needs of those of us who are not governing themselves.” Highlighting the impact of climate change, he said that, of the 16 Territories under the Special Committee’s mandate, the majority were islands. Therefore, the concerns of small island developing States within the United Nations system were also the concerns of those Territories. They were among the most vulnerable and needed to be aware of the commitment of the international community to stand by them and “weather the storm together.”
Recalling that his country had recently celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary of independence, he said Saint Kitts and Nevis remembered the concerns of the pre-independence period. One needed the goodwill of all parties to resolve such issues, and the participants should, therefore, take away with them a determination to ensure that the day would come in the not-too-distant future, when the Special Committee’s work would bear fruit, and that the solutions found would be in the best interests of all concerned.
The recommendations of the St. Kitts Seminar have become the most recent chapter of the ever growing legislative authority on the self-determination of the territories. Some of the recommendations were included in the decolonisation resolutions adopted by the UN Fourth Committee in November 2009, and are expected to be approved by the General Assembly in December 2009. Implementation is an entirely separate matter, according to International Advisor on Democratic Governance Dr. Carlyle Corbin
GUAM’s self-determination bill
How important information and education are to the people of the Non-self Governing Territories and how essential to the expression of their political aspirations and self-determination, was shown on November 5, 2009, when the delegate of Guam Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, in the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife Legislative hearing on H.R. 3940, introduced a self-determination bill to support a public education program for the people of Guam regarding various political status options to express their desired political status.
Guam is a territory of the USA in the Pacific, that 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. Guam is listed by the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory. Despites all efforts towards defining a new political relationship between Guam and the United States, the political aspirations of the people of Guam for such status were never realized. A referendum affording the people of Guam an opportunity to express their views on status was authorized by local law but remains unscheduled. In November the US Congressional Committee approved the self-determination bill and assistance to the territories.
Dr. Corbin explained that there are two separate pieces of legislation - one bill for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands, and a second different bill for Puerto Rico, which is essentially a referendum bill which had been adopted by the same Committee earlier this year. The Puerto Rico measure does not address public education since they already have a very sophisticated process in place via their political parties. Both bills have been adopted by the substantive committee in one House of the US Congress so far. It still has to be adopted by the full House of Representatives, then by the US Senate and signed by the President. He anticipated that this would happen without too much difficulty since there is no new financial resources associated with either measure.
Dr. Corbin also made clear that the issue is not only between independence or not, but rather to chose one of the three political status option which provides for a full measure of self-government, namely independence, free association and integration. These are so recognised by the UN. Some member states which administer territories, such as the UK, have told its territories that offers neither integration nor free association to them, and the choice is either independence or remaining in a dependency status. This is unlike the Dutch Antilles which had achieved sufficient autonomy to be regarded as fully self-governing. This might change as the dismantling of the five islands will now yield a new less autonomous model for the two islands which have chosen in referendum to become separate countries within the Dutch Kingdom.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
United Nations Action on Decolonisation Resolutions
United Nations Action on Decolonisation Resolutions
20 November 2009
OTR has recently completed its analysis of the vote in the United Nations Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (Fourth Committee) which adopted its 2009 resolutions on the remaining 16 non self-governing territories last month. Whilst a number of the resolutions were approved by consensus, the usual vote was required on others, as several of the countries which administer or occupy territories, or those which have sovereignty disputes over territories, vote against or abstain from specific resolutions.
In the case of the United Kingdom (UK), the usual explanation was given for their position, even as the explanation is inconsistent with its responsibilities under the United Nations Charter. France and the United States (US), however, provide no insight at the Fourth Committee on their negative votes.
In the case of the U.S., the vote by the Obama Administration was strikingly similar to that of the Bush Administration – in fact, it was identical. It appears that the policy’ ‘change’ has not yet filtered down to the issue of decolonisation of the remaining territories – an issue which apparently is of a lesser priority. The recent legislation authorizing U.S. support for a self-determination process for the U.S.-administered territories recently adopted by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources should hopefully serve to stimulate some new thinking on this matter.
OTR offers the following excerpts from the United Nations press release, with substantive commentary in italics.
Draft resolution I, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States).
Explaining his position after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said that, as in previous years, his delegation had abstained. The Government did not take issue with the resolution’s main objective, and continued to meet its obligations in that regard. His Government believed, however, that a decision as to whether a Non-Self-Governing Territory had reached a level of self-government was ultimately for the government of the Territory and the administering Power concerned, and not the General Assembly.
Taking up draft resolution II, on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, the Committee approved the text by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom)
Speaking after the vote, the representative of Argentina said the applicability of the resolution in a given Territory depended on whether the right to self-determination was applicable to that Territory. Thus, it was relevant to bear in mind that certain General Assembly resolutions noted that, in cases where there was a sovereignty dispute, such as in the Malvinas Islands, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas, a negotiated solution was the only path to resolving the dispute, and not self-determination. The resolution, therefore, was not applicable to the Malvinas Islands and the surrounding archipelagic areas. The situation prevailing in this archipelago, belonging to the national territory of a country, resulted in the unilateral exploitation by the United Kingdom of the natural resources of the Malvinas Islands and surrounding marine areas. That ran counter to the Assembly’s decisions in that field, and was a brazen violation.
The representative of the United Kingdom said that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands was well-known, as the United Kingdom had expressed in the right of reply in the general debate on decolonization. There was no doubt about that Territory’s sovereignty and there could be no negotiation about those issues unless and until such time as the islanders so wished.
(Editor's Note: The Falklands Islands and the Malvinas are different names for the same island...)
The Committee then approved draft resolution III on implementation of the (Decolonisation) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to none against, with 50 abstentions.
Speaking in explanation of vote on behalf of the European Union, Sweden’s representative reaffirmed support for the specialized agencies of the United Nations in their efforts, particularly those in the technical and educational fields. The Union favoured careful compliance with those agencies’ statutes. It had therefore abstained from the vote. The U.S. did not speak on this resolution, but did address the same issue during its consideration by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) last August. Accordingly, OTR reported in August that:
“The objections of the various member states to the resolution on assistance to the territories from the UN system are virtually identical to their objections for over a decade. Thus, the US representative continues to articulate to ECOSOC that any assistance to, or participation in, UN programmes for the non self-governing territories must be confirmed by the UN member State which controls the foreign relations of the territories concerned. This is a but a re-statement of the practice which is already in place, and has always been a requirement of the rules of procedure of any UN agency which provides for assistance or participation for these territories. The resolution, even in its present form, makes this clear.
A second objection by the US representative suggests that the resolution somehow “infringes upon” the internal constitutional arrangements of the United States. Yet, the longstanding US practice provides the delegation of authority to the territories, on a case by case basis, to participate in international organisations and activities.
In virtually all cases, it is only the state which controls the international relations of the territory which can make a request for the affiliation of the territory in any given UN body. If the delegation of authority is freely given by the administering power to the territory to participate in a given international organisation or activity, how can it be, at the same time, an infringement on the administering power’s control?”
The representative of Argentina stressed that the resolution should be in line with the previous resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee on Decolonization.
It was unclear what was meant by this position.
Following that, the Committee took up draft resolution VI, on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands approving it without a vote.
But will the provisions be implemented?
Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said that his delegation had joined consensus on the last resolution, which reflected its full support for the right to self-determination. However, his delegation regretted the outdated approach of the “Committee of 24” (Special Committee on Decolonization), which failed to take full account of the way that the relationship between the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories had been modernized in a way acceptable to both parties. The resolution did not fully reflect that modern relationship, he said, and the United Kingdom did not accept the assertion that self-determination did not apply where there existed a sovereignty dispute.
This was a repetition of the statement from previous years.
The representative of Argentina expressed full support for the right of people who were still subjected to colonization, and for the right to self-determination of the 11 Territories in the resolution just adopted. At the same time, as had been expressed in a letter to the Secretary-General distributed on 7 July. the annual resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, and the considerations contained therein, were strictly related to the Territories referred to in those questions. The question of the Malvinas Islands was subjected to separate treatment in specific resolutions that gave due consideration to the special and particular features inherent in it, which were derived from the existence of a sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom.
The Committee next approved draft resolution VII on dissemination of information on decolonization by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States) with 1 abstention (France).
Speaking in explanation of vote, the United Kingdom’s representative said his delegation had voted against the text because it remained of the view that the obligation it placed on the Secretariat to disseminate information represented an unwarranted drain on the Organization’s resources. As such, the resolution was unacceptable to the United Kingdom.
Really?
The representative of Argentina said his delegation wished to express support for the right of self-determination. Despite that, the text should be interpreted and implemented in keeping with pertinent General Assembly resolutions and the various resolutions and statements of the Special Committee on Decolonization, which recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between his country and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas Islands.
(Everything appears to be seen through the prism of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute).
Next, the Committee approved draft resolution VIII on the implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by a vote of 152 in favour to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 2 abstentions (Belgium, France).
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Argentina stressed that, regarding operative paragraph 7, visiting missions proceeded only in cases where self-determination was applicable, specifically those for which there was no sovereignty dispute.
(Everything appears to be seen through the prism of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute).
The representative of the United Kingdom said his delegation had voted “no” because it continued to find some parts of the text unacceptable.
(Which parts, may we ask?)
Nevertheless, the Government of the United Kingdom remained committed to modernizing its relationship with its Overseas Territories, while taking fully into account the views of the peoples of the Territories.
(The usual refrain...).
Following that, the representative of Guinea said that his delegation had intended to vote in favour of draft resolutions I, II and III, and requested that that be duly noted in the record.
Singapore’s representative said that his delegation had wished to vote in favour of the resolutions pertaining to item 35, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the United Nations Charter, and on item 36, on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The representatives of Pakistan and Chile said that their delegations had wanted to vote in favour of resolutions concerning item 35, and item 37, on implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations. The representatives of Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso said they had wished to vote in favour of the resolutions concerning item 35.
On 3rd October, OTR wrote that “how the United Nations deals with decolonization has become “a sterile exercise, a game of pretense played to avoid what is meant to be achieved." We indicated that we would “nevertheless… cover the 2009 session of the Fourth Committee, not because we harbor any illusions that the process will change, but rather because our readership demands to be kept abreast.”
In any event, the General Assembly will take the final vote in December. We'll be there...
20 November 2009
OTR has recently completed its analysis of the vote in the United Nations Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (Fourth Committee) which adopted its 2009 resolutions on the remaining 16 non self-governing territories last month. Whilst a number of the resolutions were approved by consensus, the usual vote was required on others, as several of the countries which administer or occupy territories, or those which have sovereignty disputes over territories, vote against or abstain from specific resolutions.
In the case of the United Kingdom (UK), the usual explanation was given for their position, even as the explanation is inconsistent with its responsibilities under the United Nations Charter. France and the United States (US), however, provide no insight at the Fourth Committee on their negative votes.
In the case of the U.S., the vote by the Obama Administration was strikingly similar to that of the Bush Administration – in fact, it was identical. It appears that the policy’ ‘change’ has not yet filtered down to the issue of decolonisation of the remaining territories – an issue which apparently is of a lesser priority. The recent legislation authorizing U.S. support for a self-determination process for the U.S.-administered territories recently adopted by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources should hopefully serve to stimulate some new thinking on this matter.
OTR offers the following excerpts from the United Nations press release, with substantive commentary in italics.
Draft resolution I, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States).
Explaining his position after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said that, as in previous years, his delegation had abstained. The Government did not take issue with the resolution’s main objective, and continued to meet its obligations in that regard. His Government believed, however, that a decision as to whether a Non-Self-Governing Territory had reached a level of self-government was ultimately for the government of the Territory and the administering Power concerned, and not the General Assembly.
Taking up draft resolution II, on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, the Committee approved the text by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom)
Speaking after the vote, the representative of Argentina said the applicability of the resolution in a given Territory depended on whether the right to self-determination was applicable to that Territory. Thus, it was relevant to bear in mind that certain General Assembly resolutions noted that, in cases where there was a sovereignty dispute, such as in the Malvinas Islands, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas, a negotiated solution was the only path to resolving the dispute, and not self-determination. The resolution, therefore, was not applicable to the Malvinas Islands and the surrounding archipelagic areas. The situation prevailing in this archipelago, belonging to the national territory of a country, resulted in the unilateral exploitation by the United Kingdom of the natural resources of the Malvinas Islands and surrounding marine areas. That ran counter to the Assembly’s decisions in that field, and was a brazen violation.
The representative of the United Kingdom said that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands was well-known, as the United Kingdom had expressed in the right of reply in the general debate on decolonization. There was no doubt about that Territory’s sovereignty and there could be no negotiation about those issues unless and until such time as the islanders so wished.
(Editor's Note: The Falklands Islands and the Malvinas are different names for the same island...)
The Committee then approved draft resolution III on implementation of the (Decolonisation) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to none against, with 50 abstentions.
Speaking in explanation of vote on behalf of the European Union, Sweden’s representative reaffirmed support for the specialized agencies of the United Nations in their efforts, particularly those in the technical and educational fields. The Union favoured careful compliance with those agencies’ statutes. It had therefore abstained from the vote. The U.S. did not speak on this resolution, but did address the same issue during its consideration by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) last August. Accordingly, OTR reported in August that:
“The objections of the various member states to the resolution on assistance to the territories from the UN system are virtually identical to their objections for over a decade. Thus, the US representative continues to articulate to ECOSOC that any assistance to, or participation in, UN programmes for the non self-governing territories must be confirmed by the UN member State which controls the foreign relations of the territories concerned. This is a but a re-statement of the practice which is already in place, and has always been a requirement of the rules of procedure of any UN agency which provides for assistance or participation for these territories. The resolution, even in its present form, makes this clear.
A second objection by the US representative suggests that the resolution somehow “infringes upon” the internal constitutional arrangements of the United States. Yet, the longstanding US practice provides the delegation of authority to the territories, on a case by case basis, to participate in international organisations and activities.
In virtually all cases, it is only the state which controls the international relations of the territory which can make a request for the affiliation of the territory in any given UN body. If the delegation of authority is freely given by the administering power to the territory to participate in a given international organisation or activity, how can it be, at the same time, an infringement on the administering power’s control?”
The representative of Argentina stressed that the resolution should be in line with the previous resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee on Decolonization.
It was unclear what was meant by this position.
Following that, the Committee took up draft resolution VI, on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands approving it without a vote.
But will the provisions be implemented?
Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said that his delegation had joined consensus on the last resolution, which reflected its full support for the right to self-determination. However, his delegation regretted the outdated approach of the “Committee of 24” (Special Committee on Decolonization), which failed to take full account of the way that the relationship between the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories had been modernized in a way acceptable to both parties. The resolution did not fully reflect that modern relationship, he said, and the United Kingdom did not accept the assertion that self-determination did not apply where there existed a sovereignty dispute.
This was a repetition of the statement from previous years.
The representative of Argentina expressed full support for the right of people who were still subjected to colonization, and for the right to self-determination of the 11 Territories in the resolution just adopted. At the same time, as had been expressed in a letter to the Secretary-General distributed on 7 July. the annual resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, and the considerations contained therein, were strictly related to the Territories referred to in those questions. The question of the Malvinas Islands was subjected to separate treatment in specific resolutions that gave due consideration to the special and particular features inherent in it, which were derived from the existence of a sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom.
The Committee next approved draft resolution VII on dissemination of information on decolonization by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States) with 1 abstention (France).
Speaking in explanation of vote, the United Kingdom’s representative said his delegation had voted against the text because it remained of the view that the obligation it placed on the Secretariat to disseminate information represented an unwarranted drain on the Organization’s resources. As such, the resolution was unacceptable to the United Kingdom.
Really?
The representative of Argentina said his delegation wished to express support for the right of self-determination. Despite that, the text should be interpreted and implemented in keeping with pertinent General Assembly resolutions and the various resolutions and statements of the Special Committee on Decolonization, which recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between his country and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas Islands.
(Everything appears to be seen through the prism of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute).
Next, the Committee approved draft resolution VIII on the implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by a vote of 152 in favour to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 2 abstentions (Belgium, France).
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Argentina stressed that, regarding operative paragraph 7, visiting missions proceeded only in cases where self-determination was applicable, specifically those for which there was no sovereignty dispute.
(Everything appears to be seen through the prism of the Malvinas sovereignty dispute).
The representative of the United Kingdom said his delegation had voted “no” because it continued to find some parts of the text unacceptable.
(Which parts, may we ask?)
Nevertheless, the Government of the United Kingdom remained committed to modernizing its relationship with its Overseas Territories, while taking fully into account the views of the peoples of the Territories.
(The usual refrain...).
Following that, the representative of Guinea said that his delegation had intended to vote in favour of draft resolutions I, II and III, and requested that that be duly noted in the record.
Singapore’s representative said that his delegation had wished to vote in favour of the resolutions pertaining to item 35, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the United Nations Charter, and on item 36, on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The representatives of Pakistan and Chile said that their delegations had wanted to vote in favour of resolutions concerning item 35, and item 37, on implementation of the (Decolonization) Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations. The representatives of Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso said they had wished to vote in favour of the resolutions concerning item 35.
On 3rd October, OTR wrote that “how the United Nations deals with decolonization has become “a sterile exercise, a game of pretense played to avoid what is meant to be achieved." We indicated that we would “nevertheless… cover the 2009 session of the Fourth Committee, not because we harbor any illusions that the process will change, but rather because our readership demands to be kept abreast.”
In any event, the General Assembly will take the final vote in December. We'll be there...
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
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
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Guam, CNMI reunification recommended
Guam, CNMI reunification recommended
Wednesday, 18 November 2009 05:21
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
THE concept of unifying Guam and the CNMI in order to achieve more progress on political self determination is “very valid and realistic,” according to United Nations advisor, Dr. Carlyle Corbin, who spoke during a public forum held last week at the University of Guam in Mangilao. “It’s a very important initiative to bring together the CNMI and Guam notwithstanding the history. The history, I have been told, is delicate,” Corbin added. “Certainly, in the end, it is a very good opportunity. The question is: What will the unified entity become?”
Corbin said some feel that the unification of Guam and the CNMI would create greater opportunities to become the 51st state of the United States, while others feel unification would allow for a more autonomous society closer to that of free association.
On the issue of privatizing the island’s various assets such as its utility agencies and the Port Authority of Guam, the U.N. advisor stated that “These are essentially political decisions of the political leadership,” and added that “The political democratic process of bringing these issues to the leadership is the way to deal with that.”
“It would be the way to deal with it if the status was different; you’d still have to deal with the elected leadership in a representative democracy,” Corbin said. “It is a threatening scenario if, in fact, the privatization has certain implications for how to move forward.”
Corbin said the island’s ability to survive without military protection from the United States “is a very valid concern among the population, so it’s a very serious matter.”
With regard to current events, and military strategy and defense, Corbin cited the island’s close proximity to North Korea as a possible concern. “That has its own dynamic in terms of its [North Korea] negotiations in the six party talks on whether there is going to be an agreement on the denuclearization of DPRK. This is critical for Guam to follow very closely because the first point of attack could very well be Guam.”
However, the U.N. advisor said it is more about the island’s ability to shift away from a situation where the possible absence of the U.S. military would not necessarily be critical to the economic sustainability of the territory.
“In doing that, what would be important for the territory would be to move forward to a more modernized political relationship with more autonomy and powers to engage the international economic system; that way, there will be more opportunities available to grow the economy from the inside-out, as opposed to from the outside-in,” Corbin explained.
Wednesday, 18 November 2009 05:21
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
THE concept of unifying Guam and the CNMI in order to achieve more progress on political self determination is “very valid and realistic,” according to United Nations advisor, Dr. Carlyle Corbin, who spoke during a public forum held last week at the University of Guam in Mangilao. “It’s a very important initiative to bring together the CNMI and Guam notwithstanding the history. The history, I have been told, is delicate,” Corbin added. “Certainly, in the end, it is a very good opportunity. The question is: What will the unified entity become?”
Corbin said some feel that the unification of Guam and the CNMI would create greater opportunities to become the 51st state of the United States, while others feel unification would allow for a more autonomous society closer to that of free association.
On the issue of privatizing the island’s various assets such as its utility agencies and the Port Authority of Guam, the U.N. advisor stated that “These are essentially political decisions of the political leadership,” and added that “The political democratic process of bringing these issues to the leadership is the way to deal with that.”
“It would be the way to deal with it if the status was different; you’d still have to deal with the elected leadership in a representative democracy,” Corbin said. “It is a threatening scenario if, in fact, the privatization has certain implications for how to move forward.”
Corbin said the island’s ability to survive without military protection from the United States “is a very valid concern among the population, so it’s a very serious matter.”
With regard to current events, and military strategy and defense, Corbin cited the island’s close proximity to North Korea as a possible concern. “That has its own dynamic in terms of its [North Korea] negotiations in the six party talks on whether there is going to be an agreement on the denuclearization of DPRK. This is critical for Guam to follow very closely because the first point of attack could very well be Guam.”
However, the U.N. advisor said it is more about the island’s ability to shift away from a situation where the possible absence of the U.S. military would not necessarily be critical to the economic sustainability of the territory.
“In doing that, what would be important for the territory would be to move forward to a more modernized political relationship with more autonomy and powers to engage the international economic system; that way, there will be more opportunities available to grow the economy from the inside-out, as opposed to from the outside-in,” Corbin explained.
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.
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.
The fast lane to first-class U.S. citizenship
The fast lane to first-class U.S. citizenship
by John Davis
As our government plans to begin the education portion of our quest towards political self determination, there’s another avenue that appears to bear more fruit than determining our island’s political status. That avenue is having our people recognized as a Native American tribe. Attempts to gain recognition of the Chamorro people as Native American tribes don’t effect the Guam quest for political self determination.
In fact, I view it as an enhancement to the current relationship with the U.S. Government.
Currently Chamorros are entitled to 2nd class U.S. Citizenship thanks to the passage of the Organic Act and the signing of the Treaty of Paris over a century ago. I say 2nd class citizenship or statutory citizenship because we don’t vote for president and we do not have equal representation in congress. We elect a delegate to congress, but they have no voting power on the floor. What makes matters worse is only certain parts of the U.S. Constitution and Basic Human Rights apply to Chamorro people because the U.S. Supreme Court recognized them and gave us those rights to 2nd class citizenship.
If Chamorro’s are recognized as a Native American tribe, members will be incorporated into an already existing federal law called the United States and the Indian naturalization Act. If the United States and Indian naturalization Act applies to members of the Chamorro Tribe, our existence as 2nd class U.S. citizens will end. Members of this Chamorro Tribe will be able to cast their vote for President, we might even get a vote that counts in the Electoral College and we will have equal voting representation in the U.S. Congress.
All it takes to be recognized as Native American is the approval of the Secretary of the U.S. department of interior. It doesn’t require an act of congress or special consideration from the president, but if it does happen, Guam and it’s Chamorro Native American tribe members will begin to reap real benefits from the federal government.
If Chamorro’s on Guam and abroad are recognized as a Native American tribe, members of the tribe would be able to help our island government with the upcoming military buildup, guaranteeing money before, during and after the buildup will stay on Guam. There is existing federal government policy related to the issuance of federal contracts that will help members of the Tribe.
That federal government policy entitles 30 percent of all federal government contracts to be awarded to Native American tribes. Native American tribes are also allowed to bid up to 30 percent over the contract amount and still receive special consideration as a Native American tribe. In fact, there is already a company doing business on Guam as a Native American Alaskan tribe, imagine the consideration they’re getting now and the consideration a Chamorro tribe would get if recognized by USDOI? Now that makes dollars and cents instead of dollars and nonsense.
Every year, money from the federal government is appropriated to recognized Native American tribes for schools, homes, businesses, public safety and healthcare. Our healthcare, education and public safety systems in our government could use some extra cash, which will be available if our people are recognized as a Native American tribe.
If you’re not a member of the Chamorro Tribe, sign up and get involved. Even the United Nations Expert on Political Status agreed gaining recognition as a Native American tribe was the express lane to equal treatment and equal representation from the U.S. Government. I say we follow his lead, but lead the way for our people.
by John Davis
As our government plans to begin the education portion of our quest towards political self determination, there’s another avenue that appears to bear more fruit than determining our island’s political status. That avenue is having our people recognized as a Native American tribe. Attempts to gain recognition of the Chamorro people as Native American tribes don’t effect the Guam quest for political self determination.
In fact, I view it as an enhancement to the current relationship with the U.S. Government.
Currently Chamorros are entitled to 2nd class U.S. Citizenship thanks to the passage of the Organic Act and the signing of the Treaty of Paris over a century ago. I say 2nd class citizenship or statutory citizenship because we don’t vote for president and we do not have equal representation in congress. We elect a delegate to congress, but they have no voting power on the floor. What makes matters worse is only certain parts of the U.S. Constitution and Basic Human Rights apply to Chamorro people because the U.S. Supreme Court recognized them and gave us those rights to 2nd class citizenship.
If Chamorro’s are recognized as a Native American tribe, members will be incorporated into an already existing federal law called the United States and the Indian naturalization Act. If the United States and Indian naturalization Act applies to members of the Chamorro Tribe, our existence as 2nd class U.S. citizens will end. Members of this Chamorro Tribe will be able to cast their vote for President, we might even get a vote that counts in the Electoral College and we will have equal voting representation in the U.S. Congress.
All it takes to be recognized as Native American is the approval of the Secretary of the U.S. department of interior. It doesn’t require an act of congress or special consideration from the president, but if it does happen, Guam and it’s Chamorro Native American tribe members will begin to reap real benefits from the federal government.
If Chamorro’s on Guam and abroad are recognized as a Native American tribe, members of the tribe would be able to help our island government with the upcoming military buildup, guaranteeing money before, during and after the buildup will stay on Guam. There is existing federal government policy related to the issuance of federal contracts that will help members of the Tribe.
That federal government policy entitles 30 percent of all federal government contracts to be awarded to Native American tribes. Native American tribes are also allowed to bid up to 30 percent over the contract amount and still receive special consideration as a Native American tribe. In fact, there is already a company doing business on Guam as a Native American Alaskan tribe, imagine the consideration they’re getting now and the consideration a Chamorro tribe would get if recognized by USDOI? Now that makes dollars and cents instead of dollars and nonsense.
Every year, money from the federal government is appropriated to recognized Native American tribes for schools, homes, businesses, public safety and healthcare. Our healthcare, education and public safety systems in our government could use some extra cash, which will be available if our people are recognized as a Native American tribe.
If you’re not a member of the Chamorro Tribe, sign up and get involved. Even the United Nations Expert on Political Status agreed gaining recognition as a Native American tribe was the express lane to equal treatment and equal representation from the U.S. Government. I say we follow his lead, but lead the way for our people.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Self-rule opportunities missed
Self-rule opportunities missed
Monday, 16 November 2009 04:21
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
EVOLVING in an ever changing post-9/11 political arena will be the best course of action for United States territories seeking political self determination, United Nations advisor, Dr. Carlyle Corbin told attendees during a recently held University of Guam public forum.
Corbin stated that the issue of commonwealth brought about by the government of Guam during the 1990s was complimented with great promise.
“The analysis that was done at that time was very critical. The CNMI covenant was in place for a few years prior to that and served as a very good basis for the attainment of certain autonomous powers,” he said, adding that “Had the Guam commonwealth been allowed to go forth, then at this point, 20 years later, if there is a definition of what is achievable, the territory would have evolved constitutionally and politically far more.”
The UN advisor also stated that most requests made by U.S. territories for further autonomy are often blocked by bureaucrats.
“In fact, we have not moved forward and there has been some degree of stagnation in terms of the political development,” he said.
Corbin added that all of the U.S. territories have done many things internally to try and address the issue of self determination, and break through the parameters of self determination status to determine what is possible and what is not. However, Corbin also cited that fact that prior efforts were also undertaken in a “pre-9/11” scenario. Additionally, the U.N. advisor stated that there is now a different view on “how much autonomy is given within the current arrangement.”
“All of these things are now continually evolving and the territories have to continue to follow, determine, and make their case, both in the U.S. Congressional arena and in the international arena as well.”
With to regards to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Corbin said that the resolution was adopted by consensus.
“It is not something that countries sign on to, necessarily,” he explained. “As a consensus, all countries around the world have agreed and supported with the exception of some who have made reservations on specific parts or specific paragraphs of the text.”
Corbin noted that there were “decades worth of favorable decisions in the United Nations” that were not implemented.
“If many of those were implemented, there would probably be fewer territories on the United Nations’ list,” he said. “Certainly, if those recommendations that were made by the United Nations with respect to Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands have been implemented, then none of us would be having this discussion today. We would be having another discussion.”
Monday, 16 November 2009 04:21
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
EVOLVING in an ever changing post-9/11 political arena will be the best course of action for United States territories seeking political self determination, United Nations advisor, Dr. Carlyle Corbin told attendees during a recently held University of Guam public forum.
Corbin stated that the issue of commonwealth brought about by the government of Guam during the 1990s was complimented with great promise.
“The analysis that was done at that time was very critical. The CNMI covenant was in place for a few years prior to that and served as a very good basis for the attainment of certain autonomous powers,” he said, adding that “Had the Guam commonwealth been allowed to go forth, then at this point, 20 years later, if there is a definition of what is achievable, the territory would have evolved constitutionally and politically far more.”
The UN advisor also stated that most requests made by U.S. territories for further autonomy are often blocked by bureaucrats.
“In fact, we have not moved forward and there has been some degree of stagnation in terms of the political development,” he said.
Corbin added that all of the U.S. territories have done many things internally to try and address the issue of self determination, and break through the parameters of self determination status to determine what is possible and what is not. However, Corbin also cited that fact that prior efforts were also undertaken in a “pre-9/11” scenario. Additionally, the U.N. advisor stated that there is now a different view on “how much autonomy is given within the current arrangement.”
“All of these things are now continually evolving and the territories have to continue to follow, determine, and make their case, both in the U.S. Congressional arena and in the international arena as well.”
With to regards to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Corbin said that the resolution was adopted by consensus.
“It is not something that countries sign on to, necessarily,” he explained. “As a consensus, all countries around the world have agreed and supported with the exception of some who have made reservations on specific parts or specific paragraphs of the text.”
Corbin noted that there were “decades worth of favorable decisions in the United Nations” that were not implemented.
“If many of those were implemented, there would probably be fewer territories on the United Nations’ list,” he said. “Certainly, if those recommendations that were made by the United Nations with respect to Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands have been implemented, then none of us would be having this discussion today. We would be having another discussion.”
Saturday, November 14, 2009
‘Self-rule results in progress’
‘Self-rule results in progress’
Friday, 13 November 2009 04:25
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
UNITED Nations advisor Dr. Carlyle Corbin advised the people of Guam to seize the moment and accelerate the process of self determination, adding that “we may not get another chance.”
During a forum at the University of Guam, Corbin said there has been “dormant evolution” in the self determination processes of many territories around the globe, citing the example of Greenland and its failed attempts for a dialogue on self determination with Denmark and the denial of Greenland’s referendum on self determination by the Danish government.
Additionally, Corbin said the current situations of territories have been further complicated by factors such as militarization and the evolution of the global economy. According to the UN advisor, the absence of self governance decreases the frequency to secure economic agreements, which ultimately hurts the ability for territories to compete in the international economy. As such, the inability of many territories to react to the fast paced world has further increased local challenges.
Nevertheless, Corbin did not focus on the negative effects of colonization, citing the example of free association with U.S. citizenship as a model of autonomy.
He said an expanded autonomy would decrease economic vulnerability, citing a contrasting example of increased vulnerability bolstering dependency governance.
With regard to U.S. territories, Corbin stated that high debt ratio has stabilized the dependence for federal grants.
Corbin also said that strategic value remains for many territories in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, which has been exploited in a continuing trend, solidifying a “priority of suppression.”
In addition, the post 9/11 period and the tightening environment of global and national security hinder territories’ ability to achieve political self determination.
From a militaristic point of view, Corbin said many territories have essentially been “spoils of war,” citing the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the United States’ acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and Cuba from Spain as an example.
Another example provided by Corbin proving war strategy’s influence on territorial affiliation with larger nations was the United States’ concern that German forces would overtake and utilize the Danish-West Indian islands as a submarine base during the First World War. As a result, the U.S. purchased the islands in 1917 from Denmark at a price of $25 million, changing its name to the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Friday, 13 November 2009 04:25
by Jude Lizama | Variety News Staff
UNITED Nations advisor Dr. Carlyle Corbin advised the people of Guam to seize the moment and accelerate the process of self determination, adding that “we may not get another chance.”
During a forum at the University of Guam, Corbin said there has been “dormant evolution” in the self determination processes of many territories around the globe, citing the example of Greenland and its failed attempts for a dialogue on self determination with Denmark and the denial of Greenland’s referendum on self determination by the Danish government.
Additionally, Corbin said the current situations of territories have been further complicated by factors such as militarization and the evolution of the global economy. According to the UN advisor, the absence of self governance decreases the frequency to secure economic agreements, which ultimately hurts the ability for territories to compete in the international economy. As such, the inability of many territories to react to the fast paced world has further increased local challenges.
Nevertheless, Corbin did not focus on the negative effects of colonization, citing the example of free association with U.S. citizenship as a model of autonomy.
He said an expanded autonomy would decrease economic vulnerability, citing a contrasting example of increased vulnerability bolstering dependency governance.
With regard to U.S. territories, Corbin stated that high debt ratio has stabilized the dependence for federal grants.
Corbin also said that strategic value remains for many territories in the Pacific and Caribbean regions, which has been exploited in a continuing trend, solidifying a “priority of suppression.”
In addition, the post 9/11 period and the tightening environment of global and national security hinder territories’ ability to achieve political self determination.
From a militaristic point of view, Corbin said many territories have essentially been “spoils of war,” citing the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the United States’ acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and Cuba from Spain as an example.
Another example provided by Corbin proving war strategy’s influence on territorial affiliation with larger nations was the United States’ concern that German forces would overtake and utilize the Danish-West Indian islands as a submarine base during the First World War. As a result, the U.S. purchased the islands in 1917 from Denmark at a price of $25 million, changing its name to the U.S. Virgin Islands.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Guam Delegation To UN Sparks Up Self Determination Question
Guam Delegation To UN Sparks Up Self Determination Question
Written by Guam News Factor Staff Writer
Friday, 09 October 2009 02:43
Chamoru Nation: 'We Need UN Intervention'
This news announcement has been repurposed from an official United Nations General Assembly press release posted at the UN website on October 7, 2009.
(Edited for use by Guam News Factor)
GUAM / New York City / 7 October 2009 - The United Nations Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) continued its consideration of decolonization items on Wednesday afternoon, October 7, hearing 22 petitioners on the questions of Gibraltar, Guam and Western Sahara.
On the question of Guam, several petitioners expressed concern about the United States planned military expansion on the island and stressed that their pleas for assistance had essentially fallen on deaf ears. Calling the United States pledge made in 1946 to ensure the decolonization of Guam "politically empty and spiritually murderous" words, a representative of the Chamoru Nation said his group came to New York year after year to, in effect, "throw ourselves on the funeral pyre that is the United Nations decolonization apparatus".
Speaking on Wednesday on the question of Guam's political status were Michael Tuncap, of the Pacific Islands Study Group of the University of California, Berkeley; Hope Alvarez Cristobal, Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice; David Roberts, PhD candidate in the Department of Geography of the University of Toronto; Megan Roberto, of the University of California Berkeley Pacific Islander Alumni; Josette Marie Quinata, Southern California Chapter of Famoksaiyan; and Destiny Tedtaotao, a Graduate Student at the University of Southern California School of Social Work.Petitioners on Question of Guam
MICHAEL TUNCAP, of the Pacific Islands Study Group of the University of California, Berkeley, said that as a descendant of a 4,000 year civilization that had existed before the nations of Germany, France, Great Britain and the United States, he requested that the United Nations recognize the inalienable right to self-determination of Guam. The continued occupation of United States military forces in Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands was rooted in a system of racial inequality between European Americans, Asian and Pacific settlers and the indigenous Chamorro people.
He said that since initial contact with the United States in 1898, massive pacification and military occupation had prevented the people of Guam from exercising their inalienable right to self-determination. Colonial ideas of racial and gender superiority had shaped a long history of military violence and United States economic security. As such, the United States currently asserted that its citizens -- military personnel -- had a "constitutional" right to vote in the people's decolonization plebiscite.
However, he said, the indigenous Chamorro people in the Marianas and the other island residents were denied the right to vote in United States elections. The United States also continued to deprive the people of Guam their right to land, even as they caused the toxic pollution that was irreparably damaging the environment. The United States military also threatened the integrity of the land through economic colonization, and colonialism had also caused irreparable harm to bodies of land and water. For those and other reasons, the Fourth Committee must immediately enact the process of decolonization for Guam in lieu of the severe, irreversible impacts of United States militarization. The process must include the maximum funding allowed to achieve a far-reaching education campaign informing all Chamorus from Guam of their right to self-determination and decolonization options, he said.
HOPE ALVAREZ CRISTOBAL, Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice, said the Chamorro people of Guam had a long history as a free and independent people, interrupted by over 450 years of colonization by outside nations beginning in the sixteenth century. She said that earlier United Nations resolutions had addressed military issues in the operative clause calling on the administering Power "to ensure that the presence of military bases and installations would not constitute an obstacle to decolonization". However, she said the United Nations today seemed satisfied with obscure reference to the military -- the single most serious impediment to decolonization. Those types of changes undermined the intent and purpose of the United Nations Charter, especially Chapter 11, devoted to the "territories whose people had not attained a full measure of self-government".
The administering Power of Guam had in the past cited the issue of its military activities as one of the reasons why that Power would no longer cooperate with the Committee. She noted the "positive light" used to describe the massive militarization of Guam in the working paper, which said its inhabitants "generally welcomed the build-up", and she said nothing could be further from the truth. The militarization of the Chamorro people through the militarization of Guam, combined with over a century of United States immigration policies, was a flagrant violation by the administering Power of accepted standards in its fiduciary responsibilities, and must be addressed.
JULIAN AGUON, speaking on behalf of the Chamoru Nation, said instead of advancing the decolonization mandate of Guam, the United States was engaged in the largest military build-up in recent history, with plans that would bring, among other things, 50,000 people and six nuclear submarines. The United States pledge in 1946 to ensure its decolonization mandate on Guam had, half a century later, become "politically empty and spiritually murderous" words, and the Chamorro people continued to live in colonial conditions. That was why his delegation had come to New York, year after year to, in effect, "throw ourselves on the funeral pyre that is the United Nations decolonization apparatus".
Self-determination, as outlined in the United Nations Charter and international conventions, was an inalienable right, he said. As a Member State, the United States was bound to protect and advance the human rights articulated within the United Nations system. "We need United Nations intervention into the increasingly desperate human rights situation in Guam," he said. "The hyper-militarization of Guam is no doubt illegal under any principled construction of international law."
DAVID ROBERTS, PhD candidate in the Department of Geography of the University of Toronto, said that the United Nations must work for a just solution in Guam, based on the understanding that Guam's status as a non-self-governing entity effected the ability of the Chamorro people to make crucial decisions about their lives and where they lived. He maintained that Guam's virtual status as a colony should be abhorrent to those who champion democracy around the world.
He urged the Committee to give top priority to the fulfilment of the right of Chamorro to self-determination through a decolonization process that included a fully-funded campaign informing all Chamorro from Guam of their rights and options. The Committee, with United Nations funding, must investigate the administering Power's non-compliance with its international obligation to promote the economic, social and cultural well-being of Guam, and must send a team within the next six months to assess the effects of the past and future militarization of the island. Finally, he said the Committee must comply with the Indigenous Forum's request for an expert seminar to examine the impact of the United Nations decolonization process on indigenous peoples.
MEGAN ROBERTO, of the University of California Berkeley Pacific Islander Alumni, said that, having been educated by one of the best universities in the world, she spoke English with no recollection of her mother tongue. She was a success story of the United States colonization of Guam. However, she questioned that success, wondering if leaving the island had been the best option for her family.
Continuing, she said the physical and emotional consequences that colonization had had on the remaining Chamorro who lived on Guahan pointed to a positive answer. Among other things, Chamorro people had been exposed to radiation, Agent Orange and Agent Purple as a result of the island being a decontamination site for the United States in the 1970s. The community was also robbed of its cultural resources. The effects of colonialism on the Chamorro people had travelled along with them in the forced migration and assimilation. However, forced migration was not self-determination.
She said that the Committee should give top priority to the fulfilment of her people's inalienable right to self-determination and immediately enact the process of decolonization of Guahan in lieu of severe, irreversible impacts of United States militarization. The process must include a fully-funded and far-reaching education campaign informing all Chamorro from Guahan of their right to self-determination and decolonization options.
The Committee must send United Nations representatives to the island within the next six months to assess the implications of United States militarization plans on the decolonization of Guahan and the human rights implications of the United States military presence. And finally, the Committee must comply with the recommendations of other United Nations agencies, especially the Permanent Forum in Indigenous Issues, which had recently requested an expert seminar to examine the impact of the United Nations decolonization process on indigenous peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
JOSETTE MARIE QUINATA, Southern California Chapter of Famoksaiyan, said her homeland was threatened by the impending United States military build-up on Guam that was scheduled to begin in 2010. Yet Guam continued to be excluded from decisions that would affect the very people whose environment would be destroyed, and whose concerns were "second to militarization and colonialism". The question of Guam was not solely based on political turmoil and chaos among those who claimed Guam as a United States "possession", but also a reflection of Guam's identity, which continued to suffer from political hegemony and an administering Power that failed to recognize and respect political rights.
She recounted a dream in which she saw her ancestors, and spoke about revitalizing the Chamorro people and preserving their language and culture. She said that a "powerful calling" had kept her passion alive in understanding Guam's heritage and struggle for self-determination. She looked forward to creating a future "moved by heart, strength, and courage" to reaffirm that the question of Guam was a question of decolonization and the eradication of militarism and colonialism.
DESTINY TEDTAOTAO, a Graduate Student at the University of Southern California School of Social Work, speaking on behalf of the Chamorro grass-roots organization "I Nasion Chamoru", said that as the end Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism neared, Guam unfortunately still remained a Non-Self-Governing Territory under the United States. Guam continued to be a possession of its colonizers, and the Chamorro people were still being denied their rights to land and political destiny.
She said the devastation wrought on the island and its people created an uphill climb for self-determination. Yet, with the impending military build-up on Guam that was to start in 2010, she asked that the United Nations uphold the promise and "sacred trust" set forth in General Assembly resolutions 1514 and 1542, and ultimately hold accountable Guam's administering Power in recognizing and respecting its quest for self-determination.
The people of Guam were strong, and had a resilient culture that had continued to prevail amidst agonies of political disarray, militarism and colonial dominance. Yet, the people's voices for choosing their own political destiny had been silenced, ignored and misunderstood. Guam's administering Power had neglected the people's right as an indigenous people, and the people had long suffered at the hands of outside influences and decisions that neglected their voices and interests. As a daughter of Guam, self-determination was not only a word that encompassed and exuded empowerment, but also a struggle, she said.
Read the original United Nations General Assembly news release in its entirety, Hearing Petitioners on Questions of Gibraltar, Guam, Western Sahara, Fourth Committee Continues Decolonization Debate: Weary of ‘Empty Words', Speakers Urge Administering Powers to Live Up To International Obligations, Set Self-Determination Processes in Motion", October 7, 2009.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gaspd424.doc.htm
Read the WebNEWSWIRE post in its entirety: "Hearing Petitioners on Questions of Gibraltar, Guam, Western Sahara, Fourth Committee Continues Decolonization Debate:UN", Submitted by Navneet Singh on October 8, 2009 - 20:43
http://www.webnewswire.com/node/470097
Written by Guam News Factor Staff Writer
Friday, 09 October 2009 02:43
Chamoru Nation: 'We Need UN Intervention'
This news announcement has been repurposed from an official United Nations General Assembly press release posted at the UN website on October 7, 2009.
(Edited for use by Guam News Factor)
GUAM / New York City / 7 October 2009 - The United Nations Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) continued its consideration of decolonization items on Wednesday afternoon, October 7, hearing 22 petitioners on the questions of Gibraltar, Guam and Western Sahara.
On the question of Guam, several petitioners expressed concern about the United States planned military expansion on the island and stressed that their pleas for assistance had essentially fallen on deaf ears. Calling the United States pledge made in 1946 to ensure the decolonization of Guam "politically empty and spiritually murderous" words, a representative of the Chamoru Nation said his group came to New York year after year to, in effect, "throw ourselves on the funeral pyre that is the United Nations decolonization apparatus".
Speaking on Wednesday on the question of Guam's political status were Michael Tuncap, of the Pacific Islands Study Group of the University of California, Berkeley; Hope Alvarez Cristobal, Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice; David Roberts, PhD candidate in the Department of Geography of the University of Toronto; Megan Roberto, of the University of California Berkeley Pacific Islander Alumni; Josette Marie Quinata, Southern California Chapter of Famoksaiyan; and Destiny Tedtaotao, a Graduate Student at the University of Southern California School of Social Work.Petitioners on Question of Guam
MICHAEL TUNCAP, of the Pacific Islands Study Group of the University of California, Berkeley, said that as a descendant of a 4,000 year civilization that had existed before the nations of Germany, France, Great Britain and the United States, he requested that the United Nations recognize the inalienable right to self-determination of Guam. The continued occupation of United States military forces in Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands was rooted in a system of racial inequality between European Americans, Asian and Pacific settlers and the indigenous Chamorro people.
He said that since initial contact with the United States in 1898, massive pacification and military occupation had prevented the people of Guam from exercising their inalienable right to self-determination. Colonial ideas of racial and gender superiority had shaped a long history of military violence and United States economic security. As such, the United States currently asserted that its citizens -- military personnel -- had a "constitutional" right to vote in the people's decolonization plebiscite.
However, he said, the indigenous Chamorro people in the Marianas and the other island residents were denied the right to vote in United States elections. The United States also continued to deprive the people of Guam their right to land, even as they caused the toxic pollution that was irreparably damaging the environment. The United States military also threatened the integrity of the land through economic colonization, and colonialism had also caused irreparable harm to bodies of land and water. For those and other reasons, the Fourth Committee must immediately enact the process of decolonization for Guam in lieu of the severe, irreversible impacts of United States militarization. The process must include the maximum funding allowed to achieve a far-reaching education campaign informing all Chamorus from Guam of their right to self-determination and decolonization options, he said.
HOPE ALVAREZ CRISTOBAL, Guahan Coalition for Peace and Justice, said the Chamorro people of Guam had a long history as a free and independent people, interrupted by over 450 years of colonization by outside nations beginning in the sixteenth century. She said that earlier United Nations resolutions had addressed military issues in the operative clause calling on the administering Power "to ensure that the presence of military bases and installations would not constitute an obstacle to decolonization". However, she said the United Nations today seemed satisfied with obscure reference to the military -- the single most serious impediment to decolonization. Those types of changes undermined the intent and purpose of the United Nations Charter, especially Chapter 11, devoted to the "territories whose people had not attained a full measure of self-government".
The administering Power of Guam had in the past cited the issue of its military activities as one of the reasons why that Power would no longer cooperate with the Committee. She noted the "positive light" used to describe the massive militarization of Guam in the working paper, which said its inhabitants "generally welcomed the build-up", and she said nothing could be further from the truth. The militarization of the Chamorro people through the militarization of Guam, combined with over a century of United States immigration policies, was a flagrant violation by the administering Power of accepted standards in its fiduciary responsibilities, and must be addressed.
JULIAN AGUON, speaking on behalf of the Chamoru Nation, said instead of advancing the decolonization mandate of Guam, the United States was engaged in the largest military build-up in recent history, with plans that would bring, among other things, 50,000 people and six nuclear submarines. The United States pledge in 1946 to ensure its decolonization mandate on Guam had, half a century later, become "politically empty and spiritually murderous" words, and the Chamorro people continued to live in colonial conditions. That was why his delegation had come to New York, year after year to, in effect, "throw ourselves on the funeral pyre that is the United Nations decolonization apparatus".
Self-determination, as outlined in the United Nations Charter and international conventions, was an inalienable right, he said. As a Member State, the United States was bound to protect and advance the human rights articulated within the United Nations system. "We need United Nations intervention into the increasingly desperate human rights situation in Guam," he said. "The hyper-militarization of Guam is no doubt illegal under any principled construction of international law."
DAVID ROBERTS, PhD candidate in the Department of Geography of the University of Toronto, said that the United Nations must work for a just solution in Guam, based on the understanding that Guam's status as a non-self-governing entity effected the ability of the Chamorro people to make crucial decisions about their lives and where they lived. He maintained that Guam's virtual status as a colony should be abhorrent to those who champion democracy around the world.
He urged the Committee to give top priority to the fulfilment of the right of Chamorro to self-determination through a decolonization process that included a fully-funded campaign informing all Chamorro from Guam of their rights and options. The Committee, with United Nations funding, must investigate the administering Power's non-compliance with its international obligation to promote the economic, social and cultural well-being of Guam, and must send a team within the next six months to assess the effects of the past and future militarization of the island. Finally, he said the Committee must comply with the Indigenous Forum's request for an expert seminar to examine the impact of the United Nations decolonization process on indigenous peoples.
MEGAN ROBERTO, of the University of California Berkeley Pacific Islander Alumni, said that, having been educated by one of the best universities in the world, she spoke English with no recollection of her mother tongue. She was a success story of the United States colonization of Guam. However, she questioned that success, wondering if leaving the island had been the best option for her family.
Continuing, she said the physical and emotional consequences that colonization had had on the remaining Chamorro who lived on Guahan pointed to a positive answer. Among other things, Chamorro people had been exposed to radiation, Agent Orange and Agent Purple as a result of the island being a decontamination site for the United States in the 1970s. The community was also robbed of its cultural resources. The effects of colonialism on the Chamorro people had travelled along with them in the forced migration and assimilation. However, forced migration was not self-determination.
She said that the Committee should give top priority to the fulfilment of her people's inalienable right to self-determination and immediately enact the process of decolonization of Guahan in lieu of severe, irreversible impacts of United States militarization. The process must include a fully-funded and far-reaching education campaign informing all Chamorro from Guahan of their right to self-determination and decolonization options.
The Committee must send United Nations representatives to the island within the next six months to assess the implications of United States militarization plans on the decolonization of Guahan and the human rights implications of the United States military presence. And finally, the Committee must comply with the recommendations of other United Nations agencies, especially the Permanent Forum in Indigenous Issues, which had recently requested an expert seminar to examine the impact of the United Nations decolonization process on indigenous peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
JOSETTE MARIE QUINATA, Southern California Chapter of Famoksaiyan, said her homeland was threatened by the impending United States military build-up on Guam that was scheduled to begin in 2010. Yet Guam continued to be excluded from decisions that would affect the very people whose environment would be destroyed, and whose concerns were "second to militarization and colonialism". The question of Guam was not solely based on political turmoil and chaos among those who claimed Guam as a United States "possession", but also a reflection of Guam's identity, which continued to suffer from political hegemony and an administering Power that failed to recognize and respect political rights.
She recounted a dream in which she saw her ancestors, and spoke about revitalizing the Chamorro people and preserving their language and culture. She said that a "powerful calling" had kept her passion alive in understanding Guam's heritage and struggle for self-determination. She looked forward to creating a future "moved by heart, strength, and courage" to reaffirm that the question of Guam was a question of decolonization and the eradication of militarism and colonialism.
DESTINY TEDTAOTAO, a Graduate Student at the University of Southern California School of Social Work, speaking on behalf of the Chamorro grass-roots organization "I Nasion Chamoru", said that as the end Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism neared, Guam unfortunately still remained a Non-Self-Governing Territory under the United States. Guam continued to be a possession of its colonizers, and the Chamorro people were still being denied their rights to land and political destiny.
She said the devastation wrought on the island and its people created an uphill climb for self-determination. Yet, with the impending military build-up on Guam that was to start in 2010, she asked that the United Nations uphold the promise and "sacred trust" set forth in General Assembly resolutions 1514 and 1542, and ultimately hold accountable Guam's administering Power in recognizing and respecting its quest for self-determination.
The people of Guam were strong, and had a resilient culture that had continued to prevail amidst agonies of political disarray, militarism and colonial dominance. Yet, the people's voices for choosing their own political destiny had been silenced, ignored and misunderstood. Guam's administering Power had neglected the people's right as an indigenous people, and the people had long suffered at the hands of outside influences and decisions that neglected their voices and interests. As a daughter of Guam, self-determination was not only a word that encompassed and exuded empowerment, but also a struggle, she said.
Read the original United Nations General Assembly news release in its entirety, Hearing Petitioners on Questions of Gibraltar, Guam, Western Sahara, Fourth Committee Continues Decolonization Debate: Weary of ‘Empty Words', Speakers Urge Administering Powers to Live Up To International Obligations, Set Self-Determination Processes in Motion", October 7, 2009.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gaspd424.doc.htm
Read the WebNEWSWIRE post in its entirety: "Hearing Petitioners on Questions of Gibraltar, Guam, Western Sahara, Fourth Committee Continues Decolonization Debate:UN", Submitted by Navneet Singh on October 8, 2009 - 20:43
http://www.webnewswire.com/node/470097
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)