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
Showing posts with label Western Sahara. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Western Sahara. Show all posts
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Thursday, June 12, 2008
General Assembly Reaffirms Self-Determination Rights
United Nations, General Assembly
Special Committee on GA/COL/3177
Decolonization
6th Meeting (AM)
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION ADOPTS TEXT REAFFIRMING
SELF-DETERMINATION AS FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT
Members Hear Petitioners on Western Sahara, Guam, United States Virgin Islands
The Special Committee on Decolonization today approved a two-part draft resolution on 11 Non-Self-Governing Territories, and heard petitioners on Western Sahara, Guam and the United States Virgin Islands.
By the terms of an “omnibus” draft entitled “Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands and the Untied Virgin Islands”, the Special Committee would recommend that the General Assembly reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization, and where there was no sovereignty dispute, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right. The text also contained provisions concerning each of those Non-Self-Governing Territories.
According to the draft, the Assembly would reaffirm the responsibility of the administering Powers to promote the economic and social development of the Territories, and to preserve their cultural identity and natural environment, giving priority to the strengthening and diversification of their respective economies. The Assembly would stress the importance of constitutional reviews in the Territories administered respectively by the United Kingdom and the United States, and decide to follow closely developments concerning their future political status.
As the Special Committee took up the question of Western Sahara, a representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Frente Polisario) said no progress had been made in negotiations between the parties, held in Manhasset, New York, owing to Morocco’s refusal yesterday to cooperate with the United Nations in implementing previous plans and its refusal today to discuss the proposal advanced by Frente Polisario in April 2007. That proposal stressed the need for a referendum on self-determination, which would include the options of independence, integration or autonomy. It also proposed negotiations on a preferential relationship with Morocco if the Saharan people opted for independence. Morocco’s position left no other alternative than the continuation of the unacceptable status quo, which could have dangerous consequences for the ceasefire in place since 1991.
He noted that Security Council resolution 1813 of April 2008 had rejected some unexpected and surprising ideas offered by the Facilitator that international legality should be abandoned and substituted with the occupation of Western Sahara by a foreign force. Those ideas advocated “political realism” to the detriment of international law and required a break with the Manhasset process, as well as a rupture from the legal basis for decolonization. Such personal ideas, vented publicly, disqualified the Facilitator. Western Sahara could not become an exception to the rule concerning the right of peoples and colonial countries to self-determination.
Also petitioning the Special Committee, an indigenous Chamorro woman from the island of Guam stressed the urgency of protecting her people’s right to self-determination in the face of intensified militarization by the administering Power, insisting that the United States’ $15 billion plans to further transform the Territory into a forward base had been developed without the informed consent and against the will of the Chamorro people.
“Let’s be clear,” she said. “Massive militarization is not development in the best interests or with the consent of the indigenous people of Guam, and is in violation of the administering Power’s ‘sacred trust obligation’ under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter to ensure our transition from colonization to freedom.” The military build-up would forever secure the political and cultural dispossession of Guam’s indigenous people.
A petitioner from the United States Virgin Islands appealed to the Special Committee to demand that the United Nations system comply with its directives on decolonization. Territories committed to self-determination were deeply troubled that the United Nations appeared ready to abandon the decolonization process, “declare victory and move on”.
Also taking the floor today were representatives of Cuba and Venezuela.
The Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples -– also known as the “Special Committee of 24” -- will continue its work at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 12 June.
Background
The Special Committee met to hear petitioners regarding the questions of Western Sahara, Guam and the United States Virgin Islands. It was also expected to consider the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Untied Virgin Islands.
Before the Special Committee was a draft resolution entitled “Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Untied Virgin Islands”, (document A/AC.109/2008/L.9), by which it would recommend that the General Assembly reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization and in the absence of a dispute over sovereignty, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right.
By other terms of the text, the Assembly would also reaffirm the responsibility of the administering Powers to promote the economic and social development of the Non-Self-Governing Territories and to preserve their cultural identity. The Assembly would further request the Territories and the administering Powers to protect and conserve the environment of the Territories against any degradation.
Also by the draft, the Assembly would stress the importance of constitutional reviews in the Territories administered respectively by the United Kingdom and the United States, and decide to follow closely developments concerning their future political status.
Regarding Anguilla, the Assembly would welcome the report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission and the holding of public meetings in order to make recommendations to the administering Power, the United Kingdom, on proposed changes to the Territory’s Constitution.
It would also welcome the new constitution of the British Virgin Islands, which took effect in June 2007, and express appreciation for the efforts made to continue the work of the Inter-Virgin Islands Council to advance cooperation between the two neighbouring Territories.
The Assembly would, by other terms, welcome the work of the territorial Government and legislature of American Samoa on recommendations made by the Territory’s Future Political Status Study Commission regarding a constitutional convention.
As for Guam, the Assembly, aware that the Territory has established a non-binding plebiscite process for a self-determination vote by eligible Chamorro voters, would call once again upon the administering Power, the United States, to take the will of the Chamorro people, as expressed in the referendum of 1987, into account. The administering Power and the territorial Government would be encouraged to enter into negotiations on the matter.
Further by the draft, the Assembly would welcome all efforts by the United Kingdom, the administering Power of Pitcairn, to devolve operational responsibilities to the territorial Government with a view to expanding self-government.
Aware of the ongoing constitutional convention, the fifth attempt by the United States Virgin Islands to review the Revised Organic Act, the Assembly would request the administering Power to help the territorial Government achieve its political, economic and social goals, in particular the successful conclusion of the constitutional convention exercise. The Assembly would reiterate its call for the Territory’s inclusion in regional programmes of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), consistent with the participation of other Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Question of Western Sahara
RODRIGO MALMIERCA DIAZ ( Cuba) said the United Nations had reiterated repeatedly that the Western Sahara conflict was a decolonization issue, in which the Special Committee had a central role to play. The Saharan people were the only people who could decide on their future, as underlined by more than 40 resolutions since Western Sahara’s inclusion on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Since the adoption of Security Council resolution 1754 (2007), the parties had carried out four rounds of negotiations, and hopefully they would continue to seek solutions compatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)
Stressing that the Saharan people needed the support of the international community, he said his country had contributed to their development, especially in the area of education. In response to the Assembly’s annual appeals that Member States offer study and training facilities to the inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories, 600 Saharan students were studying in Cuba, which would continue to support a just and definitive solution to the question of Western Sahara, in conformity with the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.
MARCO PALAVICINI-GUEDEZ ( Venezuela) said his Government wished to state emphatically its unreserved commitment to the sovereign right of Western Sahara to independence, according to relevant international decisions. It was to be hoped that the will of the Saharan people would be fulfilled as quickly and peacefully as possible, and without any deviation from their natural rights.
AHMED BOUKHARI, representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Frente Polisario), said that, after Spain had withdrawn from Western Sahara in 1975, the General Assembly had called for an end to the occupation by Morocco, negotiations with Frente Polisario and a referendum on self-determination. Since then, several peace plans had been proposed, including the 2003 Baker Plan, which had all been accepted by Frente Polisario.
He said Moroccan Prime Minister Karim Lamrani had told the General Assembly that his Government would respect the results of the referendum, but Morocco’s position had hardened since 2003. It now proposed autonomy under “Moroccan sovereignty”, which implied the precondition that Western Sahara was an integral part of that country. Neither the United Nations nor the African Union recognized Morocco’s territorial sovereignty over Western Sahara, as it had not even been the Territory’s administering Power.
He recalled that, in April 2007, Frente Polisario had submitted a possible political solution that would guarantee the right to self-determination of the Saharan people. That proposal stressed the need for a self-determination referendum that would include the three options of independence, integration or autonomy. If the result was to be independence, the parties could negotiate on a preferential relationship with Morocco in the security, trade and social spheres.
Since the Security Council’s adoption of resolution 1754 (2007), which called for negotiations without conditions and in good faith, four rounds of negotiations had taken place in Manhasset, he said. Frente Polisario’s basic position had been to express its willingness to discuss those proposals in detail and to present them in a referendum to the Saharan people, as that would be the best way to move forward in line with all proposals and plans, including the Baker Plan. However, yesterday’s refusal by Morocco to cooperate with the United Nations in implementing those plans, and its refusal today to discuss the Saharan proposal, left no alternative than the continuation of the unacceptable status quo, which could have dangerous consequences for the ceasefire that had been in place since 1991. For that reason, the Manhasset negotiations, initiated in June 2007, had not made any progress.
He said that Council resolution 1813 (2008) and the Secretary-General’s report to the Council rejected some unexpected and surprising ideas offered by the Facilitator that international legality should be abandoned in order to substitute it with Western Sahara’s occupation by a foreign force. Such a “bargain” was offered under the mantle of “political reality”. If the United Nations had accepted such “bargains” in the past regarding questions of decolonization, the map of the world would look rather different today.
Such ideas advocated political realism to the detriment of international law and required a break with the Manhasset process, as well as a rupture from the legal basis for decolonization, he stressed, adding that they disqualified the Facilitator. The position assumed by Morocco since 2003 imperilled the holding of the referendum it had endorsed. The continued illegal exploitation of natural resources and political repression in Western Sahara made the impasse even more serious and placed the region on the brink of tension and conflict. No one could deny that the issue was on the Special Committee’s agenda. Western Sahara could not become an exception to the rule concerning the right of peoples and colonial countries to self-determination.
Question of Guam
SABINA FLORES PEREZ, an indigenous Chamorro woman, stressed the urgency of protecting her people’s human right to self-determination in the face of intensified militarization by the administering Power. Guam continued to play a crucial role in the economic and military defence scheme of the United States. The current plan of intensified militarization, estimated to cost $15 billion, had been developed without the informed consent and against the will of the Chamorro people. It would further transform the island into a forward base, following the establishment of Global Strike Force, the refurbishing of Naval Base Guam to enhance its capacity to support nuclear aircraft carriers, the construction of an army base to serve as a Patriot ballistic missile defence task force and the planned construction of a highway solely for military purposes.
Noting that those plans included the scheduled initial transfer in 2008 of 8,000 United States Marines and 9,000 dependents from Okinawa, she said the projected influx of 35,000 military personnel, their families and support staff from other parts of Asia would result in a 23 per cent population increase over the next six and a half years. It would alter Guam’s demography, further marginalizing the Chamorro with absolutely no guarantees that their right to self-determination would remain intact. Furthermore, Lieutenant General Daniel P. Leaf, Deputy Commander of Pacific Command, had stated in 2006 that United States troops had a constitutional right to participate in Guam’s local elections. That was an example of United States policy regarding local governance.
The military build-up on Guam contravened the administering Power’s moral and legal obligations to protect the indigenous population’s human rights, she said. The island’s water, power and port were under relentless privatization pressure, all within the trust of the administering Power. The local population’s livelihoods had also been impacted by persistent and cumulative exposure to military contamination. At least 78 toxic sites had been identified for clean up from past military activities, and countless others were hidden. Local water resources in close proximity to military bases were seriously compromised by the administering Power. For example, Andersen Air Force Base sat atop the northern aquifer supplying 75 per cent of Guam’s drinking water.
Describing the dire situation of the population, she said the military influx, promoted as the panacea to the local Government’s economic woes, was exacerbating living conditions for many residents. Twenty-five per cent of the residents were below the federally defined poverty level, while rents and housing prices had skyrocketed beyond the reach of many local people, who were on fixed or low incomes. The Chamorro were at serious risk of losing control of their homeland, as green areas and significant ancestral burial sites were bulldozed and developed for housing and tourism. The United States Department of the Interior had taken an active role in inviting foreign businesses to build up Guam’s military-based economy. “Let’s be clear. Massive militarization is not development in the best interests or with the consent of the indigenous people of Guam and is in violation of the administering Power’s ‘sacred trust obligation’ under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter to ensure our transition from colonization to freedom.”
She said the military build-up would forever secure the political and cultural dispossession of the indigenous people of Guam, who were reminded time and again that they were “less than human and mere objects” by policy-makers and military leaders of the administering Power, including one Captain Douglas, who had stated bluntly: “People of Guam seem to forget that they are a possession and not an equal partner.” The Chamorro were requesting relief from the violence that the intensified militarization brought. The Special Committee must live up to its mandate and end its current policy of “colonial accommodation”. It should give top priority to the inalienable right of the Chamorro people to self-determination; work with the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in reporting on the decolonization process at its eighth session in 2009; denounce the administering Power’s “hyper-militarization” of Guam as a breach of trust; and implement measures to increase the coordination of United Nations agencies towards decolonization, providing corrective measures against the current and cumulative impacts of colonization and militarization.
Question of United States Virgin Islands
JULIETTE CHIN, presenting a statement by Judith L. Bourne, President of the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands, said the lack of substantive positive movement on decolonization in the twenty-first century was a travesty of the Special Committee’s purpose, attributable largely to the indifference of some administering Powers, which sensed that Member States were no longer interested in real decolonization. A significant part of that was due to the inaction of the United Nations system, which had failed to carry out, or had inadequately carried out, the activities that the Special Committee had directed it to carry out in its annual resolutions.
For example, she said, in its resolution of 27 May on the dissemination of decolonization information, the Special Committee had referred to the information leaflet entitled What the United Nations Can Do to Assist Non-Self-Governing Territories. However, that document gave no insight on the agencies providing the assistance to which it referred. It was thus of questionable value, yet the resolution projected it as a major contribution to the dissemination of information on decolonization. Also, when queried in 2007, the Department of Public Information had been unable to give any indication as to whether the information had ever reached the Territories. Yet the resolution recognized the role of United Nations information centres in disseminating information to them. That was but one example of the disconnect between what the United Nations system said it did and what was actually done.
In the United States Virgin Islands, she said, awareness of the actual political status options available to the Territory’s people was virtually non-existent, despite decades of resolutions on the creation of education programmes on that issue. “The inability of this Committee to require the United Nations departments to actually carry out Committee decisions is nothing short of tragic.” The Special Committee had referred to the current constitutional convention as progress towards self-determination. Setting aside the fact that the United States law authorizing the development of a local constitution clearly delimited its scope to the confines of the present colonial relationship, a recent exchange illustrated both the abdication of any responsibility by the administering Power for the political education or development of the Territory and the lack of an informed consciousness there.
She said that, following the Governor’s request for technical assistance funding from the administering Power to fund the convention’s expenses, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary had responded: “Because your drafting of a constitution is an exercise in self-government, we believe it important that the entire effort, including the financing, be accomplished locally.” That response was in derogation of clear responsibilities of the administering Power. Clearly, a refusal to require action on the many valuable activities mandated in the Special Committee’s annual resolutions was to turn aside from its stated purpose. The United States itself had acknowledged to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2007 that there had been no changes in the political status of any of the United States-administered Territories.
“Is there a new purpose to simply legitimize status quo colonial arrangements as some new acceptable form of self-government, contrary to the real situation on the ground?” she asked. “What happened to the case-by-case analysis, which the Committee adopted, which would have provided details on the current colonial arrangements? What happened to the Plan of Implementation of the Decolonization mandate, endorsed by the General Assembly, which called for much needed political analysis to be done by an independent expert? What happened to the proposal by Dominica at the opening of the Special Committee in February to create a working group to deal with the small territories?” It appeared that all those proposals, designed actually to carry out the decolonization mandate, had been systematically blocked, while the status quo continued.
Thus, less than two years before the end of the Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, she said, the Special Committee produced repetitive resolutions with no apparent prospect of implementation, with the cycle repeating itself over and over, year after year, while the United States Virgin Islands actually moved further away from activities and a mindset that encouraged self-determination. Perhaps the conclusions of the expert seminar on decolonization proposed by the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues would provide the Special Committee with much needed information on the dynamics of contemporary colonial arrangements. Territories committed to self-determination were deeply troubled that the United Nations appeared to be ready to abandon the decolonization process at the end of the present decade, declare victory and move on. The Special Committee was urged to demand that the United Nations system comply with its directives on decolonization.
The Special Committee then approved, without a vote, the draft resolution contained in document A/AC.109/2008/L.9.
* *** *
Special Committee on GA/COL/3177
Decolonization
6th Meeting (AM)
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION ADOPTS TEXT REAFFIRMING
SELF-DETERMINATION AS FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT
Members Hear Petitioners on Western Sahara, Guam, United States Virgin Islands
The Special Committee on Decolonization today approved a two-part draft resolution on 11 Non-Self-Governing Territories, and heard petitioners on Western Sahara, Guam and the United States Virgin Islands.
By the terms of an “omnibus” draft entitled “Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands and the Untied Virgin Islands”, the Special Committee would recommend that the General Assembly reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization, and where there was no sovereignty dispute, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right. The text also contained provisions concerning each of those Non-Self-Governing Territories.
According to the draft, the Assembly would reaffirm the responsibility of the administering Powers to promote the economic and social development of the Territories, and to preserve their cultural identity and natural environment, giving priority to the strengthening and diversification of their respective economies. The Assembly would stress the importance of constitutional reviews in the Territories administered respectively by the United Kingdom and the United States, and decide to follow closely developments concerning their future political status.
As the Special Committee took up the question of Western Sahara, a representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Frente Polisario) said no progress had been made in negotiations between the parties, held in Manhasset, New York, owing to Morocco’s refusal yesterday to cooperate with the United Nations in implementing previous plans and its refusal today to discuss the proposal advanced by Frente Polisario in April 2007. That proposal stressed the need for a referendum on self-determination, which would include the options of independence, integration or autonomy. It also proposed negotiations on a preferential relationship with Morocco if the Saharan people opted for independence. Morocco’s position left no other alternative than the continuation of the unacceptable status quo, which could have dangerous consequences for the ceasefire in place since 1991.
He noted that Security Council resolution 1813 of April 2008 had rejected some unexpected and surprising ideas offered by the Facilitator that international legality should be abandoned and substituted with the occupation of Western Sahara by a foreign force. Those ideas advocated “political realism” to the detriment of international law and required a break with the Manhasset process, as well as a rupture from the legal basis for decolonization. Such personal ideas, vented publicly, disqualified the Facilitator. Western Sahara could not become an exception to the rule concerning the right of peoples and colonial countries to self-determination.
Also petitioning the Special Committee, an indigenous Chamorro woman from the island of Guam stressed the urgency of protecting her people’s right to self-determination in the face of intensified militarization by the administering Power, insisting that the United States’ $15 billion plans to further transform the Territory into a forward base had been developed without the informed consent and against the will of the Chamorro people.
“Let’s be clear,” she said. “Massive militarization is not development in the best interests or with the consent of the indigenous people of Guam, and is in violation of the administering Power’s ‘sacred trust obligation’ under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter to ensure our transition from colonization to freedom.” The military build-up would forever secure the political and cultural dispossession of Guam’s indigenous people.
A petitioner from the United States Virgin Islands appealed to the Special Committee to demand that the United Nations system comply with its directives on decolonization. Territories committed to self-determination were deeply troubled that the United Nations appeared ready to abandon the decolonization process, “declare victory and move on”.
Also taking the floor today were representatives of Cuba and Venezuela.
The Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples -– also known as the “Special Committee of 24” -- will continue its work at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 12 June.
Background
The Special Committee met to hear petitioners regarding the questions of Western Sahara, Guam and the United States Virgin Islands. It was also expected to consider the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Untied Virgin Islands.
Before the Special Committee was a draft resolution entitled “Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Untied Virgin Islands”, (document A/AC.109/2008/L.9), by which it would recommend that the General Assembly reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization and in the absence of a dispute over sovereignty, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right.
By other terms of the text, the Assembly would also reaffirm the responsibility of the administering Powers to promote the economic and social development of the Non-Self-Governing Territories and to preserve their cultural identity. The Assembly would further request the Territories and the administering Powers to protect and conserve the environment of the Territories against any degradation.
Also by the draft, the Assembly would stress the importance of constitutional reviews in the Territories administered respectively by the United Kingdom and the United States, and decide to follow closely developments concerning their future political status.
Regarding Anguilla, the Assembly would welcome the report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission and the holding of public meetings in order to make recommendations to the administering Power, the United Kingdom, on proposed changes to the Territory’s Constitution.
It would also welcome the new constitution of the British Virgin Islands, which took effect in June 2007, and express appreciation for the efforts made to continue the work of the Inter-Virgin Islands Council to advance cooperation between the two neighbouring Territories.
The Assembly would, by other terms, welcome the work of the territorial Government and legislature of American Samoa on recommendations made by the Territory’s Future Political Status Study Commission regarding a constitutional convention.
As for Guam, the Assembly, aware that the Territory has established a non-binding plebiscite process for a self-determination vote by eligible Chamorro voters, would call once again upon the administering Power, the United States, to take the will of the Chamorro people, as expressed in the referendum of 1987, into account. The administering Power and the territorial Government would be encouraged to enter into negotiations on the matter.
Further by the draft, the Assembly would welcome all efforts by the United Kingdom, the administering Power of Pitcairn, to devolve operational responsibilities to the territorial Government with a view to expanding self-government.
Aware of the ongoing constitutional convention, the fifth attempt by the United States Virgin Islands to review the Revised Organic Act, the Assembly would request the administering Power to help the territorial Government achieve its political, economic and social goals, in particular the successful conclusion of the constitutional convention exercise. The Assembly would reiterate its call for the Territory’s inclusion in regional programmes of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), consistent with the participation of other Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Question of Western Sahara
RODRIGO MALMIERCA DIAZ ( Cuba) said the United Nations had reiterated repeatedly that the Western Sahara conflict was a decolonization issue, in which the Special Committee had a central role to play. The Saharan people were the only people who could decide on their future, as underlined by more than 40 resolutions since Western Sahara’s inclusion on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Since the adoption of Security Council resolution 1754 (2007), the parties had carried out four rounds of negotiations, and hopefully they would continue to seek solutions compatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)
Stressing that the Saharan people needed the support of the international community, he said his country had contributed to their development, especially in the area of education. In response to the Assembly’s annual appeals that Member States offer study and training facilities to the inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories, 600 Saharan students were studying in Cuba, which would continue to support a just and definitive solution to the question of Western Sahara, in conformity with the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.
MARCO PALAVICINI-GUEDEZ ( Venezuela) said his Government wished to state emphatically its unreserved commitment to the sovereign right of Western Sahara to independence, according to relevant international decisions. It was to be hoped that the will of the Saharan people would be fulfilled as quickly and peacefully as possible, and without any deviation from their natural rights.
AHMED BOUKHARI, representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Frente Polisario), said that, after Spain had withdrawn from Western Sahara in 1975, the General Assembly had called for an end to the occupation by Morocco, negotiations with Frente Polisario and a referendum on self-determination. Since then, several peace plans had been proposed, including the 2003 Baker Plan, which had all been accepted by Frente Polisario.
He said Moroccan Prime Minister Karim Lamrani had told the General Assembly that his Government would respect the results of the referendum, but Morocco’s position had hardened since 2003. It now proposed autonomy under “Moroccan sovereignty”, which implied the precondition that Western Sahara was an integral part of that country. Neither the United Nations nor the African Union recognized Morocco’s territorial sovereignty over Western Sahara, as it had not even been the Territory’s administering Power.
He recalled that, in April 2007, Frente Polisario had submitted a possible political solution that would guarantee the right to self-determination of the Saharan people. That proposal stressed the need for a self-determination referendum that would include the three options of independence, integration or autonomy. If the result was to be independence, the parties could negotiate on a preferential relationship with Morocco in the security, trade and social spheres.
Since the Security Council’s adoption of resolution 1754 (2007), which called for negotiations without conditions and in good faith, four rounds of negotiations had taken place in Manhasset, he said. Frente Polisario’s basic position had been to express its willingness to discuss those proposals in detail and to present them in a referendum to the Saharan people, as that would be the best way to move forward in line with all proposals and plans, including the Baker Plan. However, yesterday’s refusal by Morocco to cooperate with the United Nations in implementing those plans, and its refusal today to discuss the Saharan proposal, left no alternative than the continuation of the unacceptable status quo, which could have dangerous consequences for the ceasefire that had been in place since 1991. For that reason, the Manhasset negotiations, initiated in June 2007, had not made any progress.
He said that Council resolution 1813 (2008) and the Secretary-General’s report to the Council rejected some unexpected and surprising ideas offered by the Facilitator that international legality should be abandoned in order to substitute it with Western Sahara’s occupation by a foreign force. Such a “bargain” was offered under the mantle of “political reality”. If the United Nations had accepted such “bargains” in the past regarding questions of decolonization, the map of the world would look rather different today.
Such ideas advocated political realism to the detriment of international law and required a break with the Manhasset process, as well as a rupture from the legal basis for decolonization, he stressed, adding that they disqualified the Facilitator. The position assumed by Morocco since 2003 imperilled the holding of the referendum it had endorsed. The continued illegal exploitation of natural resources and political repression in Western Sahara made the impasse even more serious and placed the region on the brink of tension and conflict. No one could deny that the issue was on the Special Committee’s agenda. Western Sahara could not become an exception to the rule concerning the right of peoples and colonial countries to self-determination.
Question of Guam
SABINA FLORES PEREZ, an indigenous Chamorro woman, stressed the urgency of protecting her people’s human right to self-determination in the face of intensified militarization by the administering Power. Guam continued to play a crucial role in the economic and military defence scheme of the United States. The current plan of intensified militarization, estimated to cost $15 billion, had been developed without the informed consent and against the will of the Chamorro people. It would further transform the island into a forward base, following the establishment of Global Strike Force, the refurbishing of Naval Base Guam to enhance its capacity to support nuclear aircraft carriers, the construction of an army base to serve as a Patriot ballistic missile defence task force and the planned construction of a highway solely for military purposes.
Noting that those plans included the scheduled initial transfer in 2008 of 8,000 United States Marines and 9,000 dependents from Okinawa, she said the projected influx of 35,000 military personnel, their families and support staff from other parts of Asia would result in a 23 per cent population increase over the next six and a half years. It would alter Guam’s demography, further marginalizing the Chamorro with absolutely no guarantees that their right to self-determination would remain intact. Furthermore, Lieutenant General Daniel P. Leaf, Deputy Commander of Pacific Command, had stated in 2006 that United States troops had a constitutional right to participate in Guam’s local elections. That was an example of United States policy regarding local governance.
The military build-up on Guam contravened the administering Power’s moral and legal obligations to protect the indigenous population’s human rights, she said. The island’s water, power and port were under relentless privatization pressure, all within the trust of the administering Power. The local population’s livelihoods had also been impacted by persistent and cumulative exposure to military contamination. At least 78 toxic sites had been identified for clean up from past military activities, and countless others were hidden. Local water resources in close proximity to military bases were seriously compromised by the administering Power. For example, Andersen Air Force Base sat atop the northern aquifer supplying 75 per cent of Guam’s drinking water.
Describing the dire situation of the population, she said the military influx, promoted as the panacea to the local Government’s economic woes, was exacerbating living conditions for many residents. Twenty-five per cent of the residents were below the federally defined poverty level, while rents and housing prices had skyrocketed beyond the reach of many local people, who were on fixed or low incomes. The Chamorro were at serious risk of losing control of their homeland, as green areas and significant ancestral burial sites were bulldozed and developed for housing and tourism. The United States Department of the Interior had taken an active role in inviting foreign businesses to build up Guam’s military-based economy. “Let’s be clear. Massive militarization is not development in the best interests or with the consent of the indigenous people of Guam and is in violation of the administering Power’s ‘sacred trust obligation’ under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter to ensure our transition from colonization to freedom.”
She said the military build-up would forever secure the political and cultural dispossession of the indigenous people of Guam, who were reminded time and again that they were “less than human and mere objects” by policy-makers and military leaders of the administering Power, including one Captain Douglas, who had stated bluntly: “People of Guam seem to forget that they are a possession and not an equal partner.” The Chamorro were requesting relief from the violence that the intensified militarization brought. The Special Committee must live up to its mandate and end its current policy of “colonial accommodation”. It should give top priority to the inalienable right of the Chamorro people to self-determination; work with the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in reporting on the decolonization process at its eighth session in 2009; denounce the administering Power’s “hyper-militarization” of Guam as a breach of trust; and implement measures to increase the coordination of United Nations agencies towards decolonization, providing corrective measures against the current and cumulative impacts of colonization and militarization.
Question of United States Virgin Islands
JULIETTE CHIN, presenting a statement by Judith L. Bourne, President of the United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands, said the lack of substantive positive movement on decolonization in the twenty-first century was a travesty of the Special Committee’s purpose, attributable largely to the indifference of some administering Powers, which sensed that Member States were no longer interested in real decolonization. A significant part of that was due to the inaction of the United Nations system, which had failed to carry out, or had inadequately carried out, the activities that the Special Committee had directed it to carry out in its annual resolutions.
For example, she said, in its resolution of 27 May on the dissemination of decolonization information, the Special Committee had referred to the information leaflet entitled What the United Nations Can Do to Assist Non-Self-Governing Territories. However, that document gave no insight on the agencies providing the assistance to which it referred. It was thus of questionable value, yet the resolution projected it as a major contribution to the dissemination of information on decolonization. Also, when queried in 2007, the Department of Public Information had been unable to give any indication as to whether the information had ever reached the Territories. Yet the resolution recognized the role of United Nations information centres in disseminating information to them. That was but one example of the disconnect between what the United Nations system said it did and what was actually done.
In the United States Virgin Islands, she said, awareness of the actual political status options available to the Territory’s people was virtually non-existent, despite decades of resolutions on the creation of education programmes on that issue. “The inability of this Committee to require the United Nations departments to actually carry out Committee decisions is nothing short of tragic.” The Special Committee had referred to the current constitutional convention as progress towards self-determination. Setting aside the fact that the United States law authorizing the development of a local constitution clearly delimited its scope to the confines of the present colonial relationship, a recent exchange illustrated both the abdication of any responsibility by the administering Power for the political education or development of the Territory and the lack of an informed consciousness there.
She said that, following the Governor’s request for technical assistance funding from the administering Power to fund the convention’s expenses, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary had responded: “Because your drafting of a constitution is an exercise in self-government, we believe it important that the entire effort, including the financing, be accomplished locally.” That response was in derogation of clear responsibilities of the administering Power. Clearly, a refusal to require action on the many valuable activities mandated in the Special Committee’s annual resolutions was to turn aside from its stated purpose. The United States itself had acknowledged to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2007 that there had been no changes in the political status of any of the United States-administered Territories.
“Is there a new purpose to simply legitimize status quo colonial arrangements as some new acceptable form of self-government, contrary to the real situation on the ground?” she asked. “What happened to the case-by-case analysis, which the Committee adopted, which would have provided details on the current colonial arrangements? What happened to the Plan of Implementation of the Decolonization mandate, endorsed by the General Assembly, which called for much needed political analysis to be done by an independent expert? What happened to the proposal by Dominica at the opening of the Special Committee in February to create a working group to deal with the small territories?” It appeared that all those proposals, designed actually to carry out the decolonization mandate, had been systematically blocked, while the status quo continued.
Thus, less than two years before the end of the Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, she said, the Special Committee produced repetitive resolutions with no apparent prospect of implementation, with the cycle repeating itself over and over, year after year, while the United States Virgin Islands actually moved further away from activities and a mindset that encouraged self-determination. Perhaps the conclusions of the expert seminar on decolonization proposed by the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues would provide the Special Committee with much needed information on the dynamics of contemporary colonial arrangements. Territories committed to self-determination were deeply troubled that the United Nations appeared to be ready to abandon the decolonization process at the end of the present decade, declare victory and move on. The Special Committee was urged to demand that the United Nations system comply with its directives on decolonization.
The Special Committee then approved, without a vote, the draft resolution contained in document A/AC.109/2008/L.9.
* *** *
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)