Calvo Pushes Political Status Vote in Annual Address

Published on April 1, 2006 by Pacific Daily News

By Shawn Raymundo

Standing at the entrance of the nearly completed Guam Museum in Hagåtña on Thursday evening, Gov. Eddie Calvo delivered his annual State of the Island address.

The location of this year’s address symbolized the theme of Calvo’s speech. With the past behind him — a building that will soon be filled with artifacts from another time — Calvo spoke of the island’s future.

The Republican governor, now midway through his second term, made several announcements in his speech, including a strong, immediate push for a political status vote, the release of $40 million in tax refunds this month and a proposal to help the financially strapped Guam Memorial Hospital.

Toward the end of his more than 6,000-word speech, Calvo announced Guam’s native inhabitants might “finally” be able to vote in a plebiscite to determine the island’s political status.

The governor said on Friday morning, he will “submit a draft measure to petition for the referendum of the political status plebiscite.”

Calvo said he’s already organized a campaign to secure the required number of signatures to get the referendum on the November ballot.

“We will aggressively seek the required number of signatures, making this a grassroots decolonization effort,” he said.

If, by mid-July, depending on how an education campaign to inform the native inhabitants of their political status options is going, Calvo said he would file the petitions.

On the topic of tax refunds, Calvo announced that residents could look forward to roughly $40 million in tax refunds being released this month, covering 13,000 checks.

The state of the island is confident partly because the state of your government is strong,” Calvo said. “It is a government that manages its resources and finances responsibly, values its employees, and delivers services better as a result.”

The governor’s tax refund announcement was met with criticism from the Democratic Party of Guam, which issued several press releases to the media Thursday night, responding to Calvo’s speech. The party pointed out that the Calvo administration’s pace to pay out tax refunds has slowed substantially in the past couple of years.

Referring to the government’s bank account used to set aside income tax revenue for tax refunds, the party stated that the government hasn’t kept up with the mandatory amount of deposits that should have been collected by now.

“The truth is that the tax refunds are $26 million behind; he is fighting our taxpayers in the U.S. Supreme Court, and we owe millions of dollars to our people just as we did before he started,” the Democratic Party wrote.

Touching on the financial burdens facing the government-run hospital, Calvo noted the Guam Memorial Hospital Authority is “bleeding cash and needs a transfusion right away.”

Earlier this year, amid bickering between the Guam Legislature and the governor’s office, Adelup submitted a measure to lawmakers that would use $1.3 million in legislative lapsed budgetary funds to assist the hospital.

Legislative officials, however, said that money already had been adopted into the senator’s operating budgets.

During his address, Calvo said he’s now withdrawing the bill and urging the lawmakers to back a partnership between Sen. Dennis Rodriguez Jr. and Adelup in financing $120 million capital improvements. The endeavor, he explained, would yield $30 million.

“This is on top of revenue-generating programs we are implementing. We can secure a low interest rate if we do this now, and we identified the repayment source,” he said. “If we do this, along with Sen. Rodriguez’s bill that authorizes public-private partnerships, we will stabilize GMH for the foreseeable future.”

Rodriguez said he’s happy to work with the governor to find solutions that would address the hospital’s outstanding vendor payables, which are around $26 million.

“I’m glad that was part of his speech. And I’m going to work together to really develop a long term sustainably plan,” Rodriguez said. “He talked about financing for the immediate needs and I want to see the details on that and based on that we need to move forward, even if we look at the long term plan for the hospital we have these needs now.”

As for other plans, Calvo said, over the next few days he will introduce a bill to assess fees from major real estate transactions, which in turn will be used to infuse the Guam Housing Corporation so it can issue more mortgages to families who have been denied by the banks.

The governor also plans to improve the health and wellness of the island by pushing more resources toward programs and facilities that encourage fitness. Along those same lines, Calvo said he would work with Guam lawmakers to construct more athletic facilities and get more streets paved throughout the villages.

Editor's Note: Sen. Dennis Rodriguez Jr. did not issue a media release following Gov. Calvo's State of the Island address Thursday night. The quotes in the story came from an interview Rodriguez had with Pacific Daily News following the address. The senator was also misquoted as saying he was happy the governor mentioned him in the address. The senator actually said he was happy the governor spoke about the financial troubles of GMH. This article has been corrected and updated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-Determination is Liberation

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.

A Legal Appraisal of Self-Determination

Julian Aguon for Marianas Variety
Monday, June 27, 2011

(Editor's Note: Julian Aguon is an attorney who specializes in international law, and has authored several books and law journal articles on the subjects of self-determination, decolonization, and international human rights law. He teaches International Law at the University of Guam and has lectured extensively on these and other issues on four continents. This is the first of a series on his legal appraisal of Guam’s quest for self-determination.)

THE imprecision let loose on this island is more dangerous now than it has ever been, and writers, like myself, are being called to battle in a way we were not before.

In these high-stakes times – when the chips we are gambling with are children, coral reefs, limestone forests, narratives, whole imaginations – writers are called upon to do more than use our words; we are called to wield them. And in a time when words have been so methodically drained of meaning, it is irresponsible, if not indictable, to be imprecise.

The recent clamor around self-determination has demonstrated the danger of haphazardly flinging words around. The onslaught of opinion about the right of self-determination – namely what it is and who holds it – has reached a deafening roar.

We can hardly hear ourselves think. But in the end, opinions about the law are not the law. And despite the aggressive assertions of some, self-determination, at least as a matter of law, is not entirely up for debate. For instance, self-determination is not principally a race-based issue. Neither is it a purely political (as opposed to legal) one.

The right of self-determination has a certain shape and contour on which nearly the whole world has agreed. Self-determination is well-established in both the legal literature and actual practice of countries, and is an exalted normative domain in the contemporary international legal system. The recent clamor, then, is cruel. It does not help the people of Guam make sense of self-determination. It clouds, not clarifies, the law in this area. The following is a brief legal appraisal of self determination under international law, which is offered in an attempt to erase some of the confusion surrounding the fundamental human right.


What is the right of self-determination?

Upon the founding of the United Nations at the end of World War II and continuing thereafter, the international community increasingly recognized that the plight of colonized peoples, and later of indigenous peoples, must be terminated and their self-determination assured. The UN Charter itself, being both a political compact and an organic document, made but cursory references to this norm.

Its Article 1 calls for the development of “friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” Article 55 then states that the United Nations shall promote, among other values, “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.”

Article 73, which addresses the rights of peoples in non-self-governing territories (like Guam) who have not yet attained a full measure of self-government, commands states administering them to “recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount.” These Administering Powers accept as a “sacred trust” the obligation to develop self-government in the territories, taking due account of the political aspirations of the people. Toward this end, subsection (e) of Article 73 commands Administering Powers to submit annual reports to the United Nations on the steps they have taken and the progress they have made to move the territories toward self-government.

The interpretation of these Charter articles has been set out in major declarations adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

For instance, the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, or Resolution 1514, states that “[t]he subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.” Although the general rule is that declarations and resolutions of the General Assembly are not in themselves binding, to the extent that they illuminate and record the position of the international community on any given subject, they may be, and are frequently invoked as, evidence of the practice of states, which is a source of customary international law.

ICJ

Moreover, where General Assembly resolutions concern general norms of international law, their acceptance by a majority vote both constitutes evidence of the opinions of governments on any given subject and provides a basis for the progressive development of the law.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 1975 advisory opinion in the Western Sahara case adopted this perspective when it relied heavily on General Assembly resolutions to establish basic legal principles concerning the right of peoples to self-determination.

Major international conventions, or treaties, have lent further meaning and growth to the concept of self-determination. Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (known collectively as the 1966 Human Rights Covenants) enshrine self-determination as a right. Approved by the General Assembly in 1966, and legally binding as of 1976, these treaties bind those countries that ratify them. The first article in each covenant, identically worded, indicates the fundamental importance of the right of self-determination in international law and sets out its classic wording: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

Finally, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, also known as Resolution 2625 (XXV), provides that all peoples have the right to determine their political status without external interference, and that every state has the duty to respect this right.

Unlike the 1966 Covenants, which bind only those states that ratify them, Resolution 2625 is considered a datum of customary international law binding on all countries.

Reagan’s Third-World Reign of Terror

Published on Tuesday, February 8, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

by Dennis Hans

As the nation pays tribute to Ronald "Dutch" Reagan on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his birth, media coverage is every bit as laudatory as when he turned 90. I wrote in 2001 about PBS's fawning tributes on the Charlie Rose show and the Jim Lehrer NewsHour. Then, as now, one of the most glaring omissions was the human cost of his foreign policies. In the interest of filling out the Reagan portrait, let us consider a few regions unfortunate enough to capture his attention, starting with Central America.

In January 1981, the newly inaugurated Reagan inherited Jimmy Carter's policy of supporting a Salvadoran government controlled by a military that, along with the security forces and affiliated death squads, killed about 10,000 civilians in 1980. In the first 27 months of the Reagan administration, perhaps another 20,000 civilians were killed. El Salvador's labor movement was decimated, the opposition press exterminated, opposition politicians murdered or driven into exile, the church martyred.

In April 1983, seeking to shore up shaky public and congressional support for continued aid to El Salvador, Reagan went on national television before a joint session of Congress and -- with a straight face -- praised the Salvadoran government for "making every effort to guarantee democracy, free labor unions, freedom of religion, and a free press." The Great Communicator/Prevaricator achieved his objective; aid -- and blood -- continued to flow.

In neighboring Nicaragua, the U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship slaughtered perhaps 40,000 civilians from 1977 to 1979 in a desperate bid to hold power. Candidate Reagan was sad to see Somoza go, and once in office his administration turned to officers from Somoza's hated National Guard to spearhead a "liberation" movement. Known as the contras, they never managed to hold a single Nicaraguan town in their eight years as Reagan's proxy army, though they were quite proficient at raping, torturing and killing defenseless civilians. Tens of thousands of Nicaraguans died in a war that never would have been were it not for good ol' Dutch.

A common criticism of Reagan is that this self-proclaimed fighter against the scourge of terrorism traded with a designated "terrorist state" -- the hostage-holding fundamentalist regime in Iran -- to generate funds for the contras after Congress turned off the tap. That's true as far as it goes. But the contras themselves were terrorists, as were those elements of the Honduran army that the CIA and Ollie North employed to help the contras, as was the notorious Salvadoran air force that assisted in the contra resupply effort. All murdered noncombatants to achieve political objectives. If they were "terrorists" -- and if words have meaning, they were -- what does that make their paymaster and cheerleader in the Oval Office?

In Guatemala, after the "born-again butcher" Efrain Rios Montt implemented in 1982 a scorched-earth military campaign that left thousands of Indian civilians dead, Reagan was furious. Not at our blood-soaked ally, but at Amnesty International and others who documented his depridations. Rios Montt was getting a "bum rap," Reagan whined.

In Southeast Asia, Reagan picked up where President Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski left off in collaborating with the Chinese government to support Cambodia's murderous Khmer Rouge, which had been driven from power in 1979 by a Vietnamese government that had grown weary of the Khmer Rouge atttacking villages on Vietnam's side of the border. Along with two hapless non-communist Cambodian guerrilla groups, the ousted Khmer Rouge utilized neighboring Thailand -- with the blessing and backing of the U.S. and China -- as a base from which to launch attacks inside Cambodia.

A bit odd, Reagan backing communist mass murderers. But he did so for a high-minded principle: self-determination. So strongly did he believe in this principle that he instructed his U.N. Ambassador to recognize the deposed Khmer Rouge, rather than the regime imposed by Vietnam, as the legitimate government of Cambodia.

Alas, it was all an act. Elsewhere in Southeast Asia, Indonesia continued to occupy East Timor, the island it had invaded in 1975 with the blessing of the Ford administration. In this case, Reagan chose to oppose the Timorese resistance and support the Indonesian occupiers. Hey, what good are principles if they're not flexible - or disposable?

To give Reagan his due, a crucial difference between the occupations must be noted: Vietnam's (which he opposed) ended a bloodbath; Indonesia's (which he supported) constituted a bloodbath.

In southern Africa, Reagan was an enthusiastic champion of South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia and vicious destabilization of Angola and Mozambique. He considered the apartheid government a card-carrying member of the "Free World" and thus worthy of a "constructive engagement" policy. Like Dick Cheney, he dismissed Nelson Mandela's African National Congress as communist terrorists.

Reagan's African heroes were Zairian kleptocrat Mobutu Sese Seko and Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi. When Savimbi's horrific human rights record could no longer be denied, even some conservatives who had once sung his praises turned against him. Reagan stood steadfast. He had earlier hailed Savimbi as a "freedom fighter," just as he had elevated the Nicaraguan contras and the extremist Islamic fundamentalists fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (many of whom are now fighting us in alliance with the Taliban) to "the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers."

By providing apologetics, diplomatic support and/or military aid to some of the worst governments, rebel forces and terror-prone proxy armies of the 1980s, Reagan was an accomplice in hundreds of thousands of deaths. That's a big part of his legacy, and it's no cause for celebration.

Dennis Hans is a former adjunct professor of American foreign policy and mass communications. His essays on those topics as well as basketball and other matters can be found at http://dennishans.blogspot.com; he can be reached at hans_d@mail.firn.edu.

When Corporations Choose Despots Over Democracy

Published on Wednesday, February 2, 2011 by TruthDig.com

by Amy Goodman

“People holding a sign ‘To: America. From: the Egyptian People. Stop supporting Mubarak. It’s over!” so tweeted my brave colleague, “Democracy Now!” senior producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous, from the streets of Cairo.

More than 2 million people rallied throughout Egypt on Tuesday, most of them crowded into Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Tahrir, which means liberation in Arabic, has become the epicenter of what appears to be a largely spontaneous, leaderless and peaceful revolution in this, the most populous nation in the Middle East. Defying a military curfew, this incredible uprising has been driven by young Egyptians, who compose a majority of the 80 million citizens. Twitter and Facebook, and SMS text messaging on cell phones, have helped this new generation to link up and organize, despite living under a U.S.-supported dictatorship for the past three decades. In response, the Mubarak regime, with the help of U.S. and European corporations, has shut down the Internet and curtailed cellular service, plunging Egypt into digital darkness. Despite the shutdown, as media activist and professor of communications C.W. Anderson told me, “people make revolutions, not technology.”

The demands are chanted through the streets for democracy, for self-determination. Sharif headed to Egypt Friday night, into uncertain terrain. The hated Interior Ministry security forces, the black-shirted police loyal to President Hosni Mubarak, were beating and killing people, arresting journalists, and smashing and confiscating cameras.

On Saturday morning, Sharif went to Tahrir Square. Despite the SMS and Internet blackout, Sharif, a talented journalist and technical whiz, figured out a workaround, and was soon tweeting out of Tahrir: “Amazing scene: three tanks roll by with a crowd of people riding atop each one. Chanting ‘Hosni Mubarak out!’ ”

Egypt has been the second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid for decades, after Israel (not counting the funds expended on the wars and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan). Mubarak’s regime has received roughly $2 billion per year since coming to power, overwhelmingly for the military.

Where has the money gone? Mostly to U.S. corporations. I asked William Hartung of the New America Foundation to explain:

“It’s a form of corporate welfare for companies like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, because it goes to Egypt, then it comes back for F-16 aircraft, for M-1 tanks, for aircraft engines, for all kinds of missiles, for guns, for tear-gas canisters [from] a company called Combined Systems International, which actually has its name on the side of the canisters that have been found on the streets there.”

Hartung just published a book, “Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.” He went on: “Lockheed Martin has been the leader in deals worth $3.8 billion over that period of the last 10 years; General Dynamics, $2.5 billion for tanks; Boeing, $1.7 billion for missiles, for helicopters; Raytheon for all manner of missiles for the armed forces. So, basically, this is a key element in propping up the regime, but a lot of the money is basically recycled. Taxpayers could just as easily be giving it directly to Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics.”

Likewise, Egypt’s Internet and cell phone “kill switch” was enabled only through collaboration with corporations. U.K.-based Vodafone, a global cellular-phone giant (which owns 45 percent of Verizon Wireless in the U.S.) attempted to justify its actions in a press release: “It has been clear to us that there were no legal or practical options open to Vodafone ... but to comply with the demands of the authorities.”

Narus, a U.S. subsidiary of Boeing Corp., sold Egypt equipment to allow “deep packet inspection,” according to Tim Karr of the media policy group Free Press. Karr said the Narus technology “allows the Egyptian telecommunications companies ... to look at texting via cell phones, and to identify the sort of dissident voices that are out there. ... It also gives them the technology to geographically locate them and track them down.”

Mubarak has pledged not to run for re-election come September. But the people of Egypt demand he leave now. How has he lasted 30 years? Maybe that’s best explained by a warning from a U.S. Army general 50 years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He said, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

That deadly complex is not only a danger to democracy at home, but when shoring up despots abroad.

© 2011 Amy Goodman

New Political Status Options

FRIDAY, 01 OCTOBER 2010 04:23 BY THERESE HART | VARIETY NEWS

A bill funding an education program to enable Guam to explore other political status options is now headed to the president’s desk after the U.S. Congress passed the amended version of H.R. 3940 that Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo sponsored.

Guam has been an unincorporated territory of the United States since 1950.

The U.S. House and the Senate passed on Tuesday the bill which had since been transmitted to President Barack Obama.

Bordallo said the Obama administration supports her bill. So did other federal and local officials, including cause-oriented groups and decolonization and indigenous rights advocates on island.

“I look forward to President Obama signing the bill into law. As soon as it becomes law I will request Assistant Secretary Tony Babauta to follow Congressional intent and provide federal funds to Guam for a political status education program,” she said in a statement.

Bordallo introduced the bill on Oct. 27, 2009 and originally passed the full House of Representatives on Dec. 7, 2009 by voice vote.

On Tuesday, the House passed the amended version by a vote of 386 ayes to 5 noes. The Senate passed the amended measure by unanimous consent late Tuesday.

"The passage of this bill by the Senate and the House recognizes the importance of political self-determination for the people of Guam. The bill makes it clear that the Secretary of the Interior has the authority and should provide federal funding for political status education for a future self-determination vote,” said Bordallo.

Speaker Judi Won Pat said she’s happy to learn that the bill passed Congress but raised concern on funding issue.

“Of course, we're very happy. My concern here is the funding. I believe that $300,000 to fund this education program was identified at one time. However, according to the Commission on Decolonization, they said it would cost at least $500,000 and so, if we get $300,000, it's shy of what we're going to need,” she told the Variety.

With the military buildup progressing, the speaker said: “It’s important that we do a thorough, extensive education program on self determination on the different choices that we have. We really need to do a good job on this one.”

Firing Range

In related news, Bordallo also questioned Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn on the proposed firing range location on Guam during a House Armed Services Committee hearing.

“I urged Secretary Lynn and the Department of Defense to strongly consider proposed alternatives to Marine training requirements like moving the proposed firing range to Tinian or using existing DoD lands on Guam,” the congresswoman said.

The House Armed Services Committee held two hearings in September and another will be held on Oct. 1, Washington time, on H.R. 5136 or the National Defense Authorization Act which will appropriate funds for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for the fiscal year and for other purposes.

The bill mentioned Guam and the Committee’s commitment to the international agreement between Japan and the United States, including the movement of Marine Corps forces to Guam.

“This bill includes several key provisions to assist in a smooth implementation of this strategic realignment, including allowing the administration to spend up to $500 million to provide community infrastructure on Guam to support this move and a process to unify the utility systems on the island,” according to the bill.

Bordallo expressed her belief that acquiring additional land on Guam for a firing range is unlikely and that, in order to get the military build-up done right, all other options be considered.

Lynn stated that the DoD will examine alternatives to the proposed firing range location, including a location on Tinian, and agreed that a resolution beneficial to the civilian and military community must be reached.

“I appreciate the DoD's willingness to seriously consider other alternatives for the proposed firing range location and I will continue to work with my colleagues and stakeholders on this important issue,” added Bordallo.

Public Hearing Split on Changing Guam to Guahan

Hearing split on island name
By Dionesis Tamondong
Pacific Daily News
March 13, 2010

More than half a dozen people who testified in support of changing Guam's name to Guåhan said it would go far in preserving the island's indigenous culture

Others said Bill 331 was a waste of time, and the changes would unnecessarily cost the government of Guam and local businesses too much effort and money.

Some people suggested nixing the measure and letting voters decide in a referendum, complete with a thorough education campaign.

Educators, business owners, local activists and veterans were among those who spoke during yesterday's public hearing on Gov. Felix Camacho's proposal. The governor last month issued an executive order calling for agencies to refer to the island as Guåhan in order "to reclaim our indigenous name" and "reaffirm our identity as a people."

Camacho also has asked Guam's congressional delegate, Madeleine Bordallo, to initiate the change at the federal level. Until federal law makes the island's name change official, GovGuam will have to stick to Guam when it comes to formal communication.

Those who spoke for Bill 331, most testifying in Chamorro, said the name change would mark an important step in the island's self-determination and highlight the indigenous language and culture.
But some questioned whether Guåhan is truly the island's indigenous name, citing a University of Guam study.

"I would support this bill if, in fact, the name Guåhan is the indigenous name for the island of the Chamorros," Eloy Hara said. "But I also believe that something of this magnitude should be put in a referendum."

Ivan Carbullido said while the intent of the bill is admirable, efforts to change the name -- from government communications to business names -- would be quite expensive.

Sean Larkin said Guam's visitor industry and many companies have spent much time and effort branding the island, and those efforts could be diminished if the change were to take effect.

Larkin said instead of forcing a legal name change, which would be costly and distract from other more important issues, the island can use both Guam and Guåhan references as some local agencies and other countries currently do.

"There's no reason we couldn't use both names together," Larkin said.

For example, while Palau is the official name for the island nation, the traditional name, Belau, is regularly accepted for official and common references, said Hara, citing officials he spoke with during a recent trip to Palau.

Supporters and opponents of the measure received applause from their respective sides, but David Sablan, who called Bill 331 a waste of time, garnered applause from the entire audience after he spoke at the hearing.

The Dededo resident said he felt the bill was just a means for the governor to mark his legacy rather than a sincere step toward self-determination.

"We shouldn't even be discussing this bill right now. We should be discussing our political status," said Sablan, a local artist, Chamorro activist and Vietnam War veteran. "We have the right to change our name, but we don't have the right to govern ourselves."

When significant milestones are made toward the island's political self-determination, Sablan said he would be the first to support changing the island's name to Guåhan.

"Instead of Guam, maybe we should name the island Going ... because our governor, he keeps going and going," Sablan said, prompting applause and laughter from the audience.

Camacho is scheduled to be back on island this weekend.

Bordallo challenges DEIS

Bordallo challenges DEIS

Wednesday, 17 February 2010 03:37
by Therese Hart | Variety News Staff

Congressional report lists flaws of the draft study

THE military buildup must be delayed, Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo said last night, acknowledging that the draft environmental impact statement has serious deficiencies that need to be addressed.

In her congressional report to the people, Bordallo identified six areas of concern regarding the draft study, including and the Navy’s desire to acquire additional private and public lands.

“We will challenge the Navy to conduct the military buildup on their existing land. The Navy should better utilize its land and consider moving housing and some support facilities for the Marine aviation unit to Andersen Air Force Base,” Bordallo said.

Secondly, an area of concern is the proposed firing range at Pagat and Sasayan. “If private property owners choose not to lease or sell their land I will support them and oppose any effort by the Department of Defense to use eminent domain to acquire that land. I recognize the input of private landowners and the organization ‘We Are Guahan’ on this issue.

A third area of concern is the proposed alternative for an aircraft carrier transient berth in Apra Harbor. “The plans for the carrier berth in Apra Harbor will result in a significant loss of coral. I will challenge the Navy to identify other alternatives that will minimize coral damage and that will take advantage of currently dredged areas such as Kilo or Delta wharves among others. I thank Senator Guthertz for her input,” said the congresswoman.

Fourth, she noted the need for federal assistance for improving civilian infrastructure on Guam to support the military buildup.

“While the DEIS draft report recognizes the need to improve civilian infrastructure it does not provide a clear strategy that details how the federal government will assist Guam,” Bordallo said as she opposed the Navy’s plan to drill 22 new wells in the north “until an independent assessment is made about the capacity of the northern aquifer.”

The fifth area of concern is the lack of a comprehensive plan for the housing of guest workers and providing for their health care needs in a manner that does not further overwhelm Guam’s local infrastructure and health care system.

“Let me be clear about this issue – we must do all that we can to train our local workforce and hire them before we utilize guest workers. Any proposal to house guest workers outside the gates must address their impact on civilian infrastructure such as water, wastewater and power. We cannot allow guest worker housing off-base to cause the faucets to run dry or power outages in our homes.”

Socioeconomic

Finally, Bordallo said, the socioeconomic portion of the draft study must be completely rewritten “in order to truly address the socioeconomic impacts of the military buildup.”

She said she will encourage the Navy to work closely with the University of Guam, the Guam Community College and the Department of Chamorro Affairs to develop a better understanding of the cultural issues and to formulate a comprehensive plan to support programs which preserve and promote Chamorro culture and language and I thank Fuetsan Famaloan for this input.”

On the issue of war claims, Bordallo said that she has made significant progress and that “we are closer than ever to passing this bill and we will continue to build on our progress.”

Bordallo spoke strongly on Guam’s quest for self-determination saying that Guam must refocus on the process to achieve decolonization and improve its political status with the U.S.

Projects

Bordallo also said she was concerned about the one of the assumption in the draft impact report that all projects will be completed by 2014.

“It would not be an exaggeration to say that this draft EIS has done more harm than good. The DEIS has not accurately identified the impacts on Guam and it has exaggerated some impacts based on a false assumption that all projects will be completed by 2014,” said the congresswoman.

“This flawed assumption has drawn consequences and conclusions that are not sustainable and not supported by anyone. Nobody wants 80,000 additional people on Guam in 2014,” Bordallo said. “We will do everything that we can, federally and locally, to stop that from happening. As I said before, we have our foot on the brakes. I will not support appropriations and authorizations that will result in a construction pace that brings 80,000 people to Guam in 2014.”

Camacho: Name change will affirm identity

Camacho: Name change will affirm identity

By Dionesis Tamondong • Pacific Daily News • February 16, 2010

To help mark his legacy as the island's chief executive, Gov. Felix Camacho has called for the formal change of Guam's name to Guåhan.

"As we quickly move into this time of rapid growth and development that may forever change our island, our sense of identity, family and place, it is important that we reaffirm our identity as a people," Camacho said during his State of the Island address yesterday.

The governor issued an executive order for the name change and said he would submit a bill for lawmakers to approve the change.

While some senators supported the renaming proposal, other senators said it amounted to empty symbolism.

Speaker Judith Won Pat said the return to calling the island "Guåhan" could restore some of Guam's lost identity.

"This is the age where, throughout the world, people want to know who they are and find their identity," she said. "This is very important for Guam as well."

Sen. Ben Pangelinan said he supported the name change, but said the Camacho administration hasn't accomplished much in terms of indigenous issues that would back up the symbolic gesture.

He noted the Commission on Self-Determination and the Commission on Decolonization have done little under Camacho's term.

"Self-determination is not changing the name of the island. It's the exercise of our right to vote for what we want to be in terms of our place in the political community of the world," Pangelinan said.

The name "Guåhan" means "we have," said Toni Ramirez, historian for the Guam Historic Preservation Office of the Guam Department of Parks and Recreation.

He said "Guåhan" was an appropriate name for the island because it was blessed with abundant fruits, rivers and many natural resources compared to other islands in Micronesia.

The name was used before 1900, when Guam's first Naval Gov. Richard Leary designated the island as the "Isle of Guam."

Guam Visitors Bureau General Manager Gerry Perez said the name change will require a lot of work from his agency to communicate that change to Guam's visitor markets. But in the long run, he said it can reinforce the island's cultural identity and history, which is already part of the bureau's campaign to show tourists what sets Guam apart from other destinations.

Sen. Eddie Calvo, a gubernatorial candidate in this year's elections, said while the name change could be positive for Guam, the government will have to look at the potential costs and impact of doing so.

Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz said he thought the name change isn't going to have any major impact. He also said he was disappointed the governor decided to make this his lasting legacy.

"I expected that the legacy was going to be more what he was going to do about the buildup and not about renaming Guam Guåhan," Cruz said. "Sure, it gives us pride in ourselves, but we would have a little more pride if we had a leader that was going to protect us with this upcoming buildup. That would have been more important for me to hear."

Pacific Daily News reporter Brett Kelman contributed to this report.

PNC :: Resolution Calls DEIS "Grossly Flawed"

PNC :: Resolution Calls DEIS "Grossly Flawed"

Friday, 12 February 2010

Guam - Resolution 275 calls the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the planned military buildup, "grossly flawed."

The resolution details the legislatures objections to the impact of the military buildup and provides a list of "essential elements," un-related to the buildup, "that must be favorably resolved."

The list includes the right to self determination, the return of ancestral lands, war reparations and other issues.

Read Resolution 275
http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/images/pdf/resforobama.pdf

The resolution will be taken to Washington D.C. next month by a group of Guam Senators who hope to be able to present it to the U.S. Congress and President Obama.

Written by : Kevin Kerrigan

PNC :: Legislature Passes Buildup Resolution

PNC :: Legislature Passes Buildup Resolution

Thursday, 11 February 2010

Guam - The Guam Legislature unanimously passed a resolution Thursday afternoon, which functions as the official comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement from the body.

The resolution is authored by Senator Rory Respicio, Senator Judith Guthertz, and Speaker Judi Won Pat. All other senators are co-sponsors. Resolution No. 275 outlines many concerns raised about the DEIS and makes recommendations for Congress to address long-standing local issues in light of the coming military buildup.

A delegation of Senators are planning to present the resolution personally in Washington D.C. in March.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle worked together to agree on the language included in the resolution. Two days of working sessions were conducted, allowing the body to come to a consensus on the important document. Among the issues requested to be addressed are:

· Self-determination

· Unreturned ancestral lands

· War reparations

· Inclusion in the Supplemental Security Income program

· Exemption from the Jones Act

· Removal of caps from Medicaid and all federally mandated public assistance programs

· Full reimbursement for impact costs as a result of the Compacts of Free Association

· Cleaning-up of environmental hazards that were created or augmented by the federal government

· Full participation in economic stimulus legislation

· Establishment of a secure Guam-only visa waiver program

· Inclusion of the Philippines, Russia and China in the Visa-Waiver Program

· Reimbursement for Earned Income Tax Credits paid or owed

The Legislature also asserted a number of findings it is requesting to be honored:

* Executive and Congressional intervention mandating the Department of Defense present a revised DEIS that can be reviewed and commented on
* Reconcile inconsistencies with DoD studies and those from the General Accountability office regarding the military buidup
* Establish a Civil-Military Advisory Council
* Asses the need for an omnibus appropriations bill addressing the needs of the buildup
* Conduct a proper and accurate assessment on the additional revenue that will be collected as a result of the buildup
* Allow the reimbursement of all Medicare and Medicaid costs incurred by U.S.-accredited health care facilities in the Republic of the Facilities
* Create a full fledged U.S. Veterans Affairs Office
* Allow Guam to control its Exclusive Economic Zone

Written by : News Release

Still no word on Guam demands

Still no word on Guam demands

Wednesday, 27 January 2010 05:22
by Therese Hart | Variety News Staff

COMPACT impact reimbursements, the military buildup, war reparations and political self-determination seem to be very touchy subjects in Washington D.C. but all Sen. Frank Blas Jr. wants to know is why Congressman Nick Rahall won't make a statement on compact impact after he had promised to do so.

During a congressional delegation visit to Guam in August last year, Blas was told that the congressman had a prepared statement regarding the matter and that he would be making it at some point during his visit.

Immediately after Rahall made his presentation during one of the lecture series held at the University of Guam, Blas asked one of Rahall's senior staff members about the promised discussion on Compact Impact. “I was informed then that a decision was made not to discuss the matter and that I was not to be told as to why,” said Blas.

Blas had brought this issue to the attention of Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo who assured him that a response will be forthcoming. However, Blas has yet to receive any response.

“I believe there has been sufficient time to gain a response as to why the Compact issue was not discussed during Mr. Rahall's visit and would appreciate an answer as promised,” wrote Blas to Bordallo.

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.