Johannesburg, South Africa – At the opening ceremony of the Pan African Parliament Permanent Committee Sittings on February 24, 2025, HRH Dr. Barryl A. Biekman, Chair of the Executive of the African Union African Diaspora High Council, delivered a landmark address, calling for deeper integration between Africa and its global diaspora.
Before a distinguished audience that included His Excellency Chief Fortune Charumbira, President of the Pan African Parliament, the Judge President of the African Court on Human and People’s Rights, Lady Justice Imani D. Aboud, and Hon. Thandi Moraka, South Africa’s Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Dr. Biekman emphasized the urgent need for unity, justice, and reparatory action to heal the wounds of the past and build a sustainable future for Africa and its Diaspora.
The Pan African Parliament shared a post highlighting Dr. Barryl Biekman’s address at the Sitting of Permanent Committees. As the Board Chairperson of the African Union African Diaspora Sixth Region High Council, she emphasized the long-awaited inclusion of the African diaspora in Pan-African activities. She also acknowledged the African Union’s focus on justice and reparations for Africans and people of African descent.
Honoring the Past, Demanding Justice
In a moment of collective reflection, Dr. Biekman asked attendees to close their eyes and imagine the trauma of enslavement—its brutality, its dehumanization, and its lasting consequences. Speaking as a direct descendant of enslaved people taken from Africa to Suriname, South America, she underscored the enduring pain of that history and the imperative for reparatory justice.
"Imagine what could have been if our ancestors had not been stolen, if their humanity had not been reduced to commodities labeled 'Negro boy' or 'Negro girl.' Would we be here today discussing reparations?" she asked.
Dr. Biekman described the horrors of enslavement, referencing the Code Noir and other oppressive legal systems that sought to strip Africans of their identity, family structures, and dignity. Yet, she also celebrated the resilience of the historical African Diaspora, who, despite generations of oppression, have remained steadfast in their African identity and their pursuit of justice.
The Sixth Region: Strengthening the Connection Between Africa and Its Diaspora
Referencing Article 3(q) of the African Union Constitutive Act, adopted in Maputo, Mozambique (2003), Dr. Biekman reiterated the commitment to integrating the African diaspora as the Sixth Region of the African Union. She described the AU African Diaspora High Council as a “Leave No Community Behind” governance model born from 125 years of struggle, dating back to the First Pan- African Congress of 1900 and resistance to the Berlin Conference (1884-1885).
She urged the Pan African Parliament to take concrete steps toward inclusion, calling for the establishment of a Special Diaspora Committee and greater diaspora participation in trade, justice, gender, and legal committees.
"We must capitalize on the potential of our people across the globe to build a stronger, more integrated Africa" Dr. Barryl Biekman
She emphasized that the African diaspora extends beyond CARICOM nations to include Brazil, Colombia, Panama, the United States, Canada, Japan, China, Russia, Palestine, India, Australia, Israel, and Europe—highlighting the need for broader representation in African affairs.
A Call for Action: From Survival to Strength, From Pain to Power
Asserting that the fight for justice is far from over, Dr. Biekman called on the Pan African Parliament to take decisive action in addressing the lingering effects of slavery, colonialism, and neo-colonialism.
"Let us unite to dismantle the lasting vestiges of oppression. Let us reclaim our stolen artifacts, our ancestral lands, and our rightful economic resources. Let us ensure that the voices of the diaspora resonate in every global forum," Dr. Biekman declared.
She also highlighted climate change, economic marginalization, and exploitation as pressing issues affecting people of African descent worldwide, urging African leaders to work alongside the diaspora in creating solutions.
A Unified Future: The Power of Pan-Africanism
Dr. Biekman’s address concluded with a powerful vision of unity, resilience, and Pan-Africanism in practice:
"Together, we will build a stronger, more integrated Africa. Together, we will achieve reparatory justice. Together, we will honor the sacrifices of our ancestors and forge a future worthy of their legacy. Let us transform the pain of our past into the undeniable power of our future."
The speech was met with enthusiastic applause, reflecting the growing momentum for stronger Diaspora engagement in shaping Africa’s future.
ALKEBULAN INDIGENOUS is a division of KROTOASA RESEARCH INTENSIVE INSTITUTE (KRII), which refers to all Alkebulan communities and Diaspora Slave Descendants who lost their claims to land through colonialism and slavery, also communities with deep historical indigenous ties to the lands, natural resourses and environment, who maintain unique cultures, traditional practices and self-governance,. Alkebulan is considered the oldest and indigenous name for the continent of Africa, translating to "Mother of Mankind" or "Garden of Eden". Used by ancient Moors, Nubians, and Ethiopians, it predates the European-imposed name "Africa" and represents a push to reclaim pre-colonial African identity and history.
Alkebulan Indigeon also points to the rich diversity of Africa's original inhabitants, whose traditional lives and rights are central to understanding the continent's complex history and ongoing social dynamics. These are groups of people native to a specific region, people who lived here before colonist arrived.
Indigenous People like the San and Khoekhoe population both carrying mtDNA +100 000 years in Southern Africa are recognised indigenous peoples by the United Nations and UNDRIP., These two groups chose different lifestyles as hunters and herders but after colonialsm many Khoekhoe populations became hunters due to dispossesion and Genoicide by European and Bantu Settlers. Bantu Settlers was named by the Khoekhoe people as "Xhosas" and adopting the cultures and rituals of the KhoeKhoe population, Bantu's are distinct from the majority African populations who migrated and lost their historic continuity of their culture, tribes, indigenous livestyles, territories and surrounding natural resources.
Political Participation: Indigenous People lack political representation and participation, economic marginlization and poverty, lack of access to social services, discrimination, and protection of rights.
Alkebulan's marginalization in global politics and economics stems from a mix of historical legacies of colonialism, global politics and global economic structures that favor commodity exports, leading to asymmetrical trade, capital flight, and limited industrialization. Key factors include dependence on external powers, poor infrastructure, illicit financial flows, and structural disadvantages within global trade rules, despite rich resources.
Alkebulan's revolution of sweeping transformation, primarily the anti-colonial independence movements (Decolonisation of Africa 1950 -1970s), the anti-colonial restistance, the political revolution, the economic and social revolutions, the labour revolutions with key drivers and goals of self-determination by ending foreign control and achieving political independence and economic independence by moving from exporting raw materials to manufacturing in areas where extraction taking place.
South Africa’s land and mining crisis is political and structural, and experts at the 2026 Mining Indaba agree that reform requires collective, democratic community control over land.
The coffee was strong, the room was tense, and the choreography of politeness was slipping. At the Investing in Africa Mining Indaba 2026, during a co-hosted breakfast by CNV Internationaal and the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) on customary governance and accountability, one question refused to stay quiet:
Who truly speaks for the land?
It is the question South Africa has tried to dodge for three decades. It unravels the politics of mining, land, legitimacy, identity and justice. It exposes what many communities, activists and even some traditional leaders have long known: our land governance system is collapsing under pressures it was never built to withstand.
Across our panel spanning traditional authorities, mining executives, labour, community foundations and social auditors, a rare consensus emerged: the crisis is not technical. It is political. It is structural. It is about power. But amenable through dialogue.
This echoes the persistent warning from land activists, who have illuminated the core problem: South Africans cannot meaningfully negotiate mining, conservation, or development without secure, democratic governance over land. Without land rights, communities do not participate; they plead.
SA’s land and mining governance framework still carries the imprint of a 20th-century logic: centralised authority, extraction-first economics, and a technocratic state that presumes legitimacy without earning it.
This is unjust and obsolete in a world defined by rising community expectations, AI-powered transparency, climate-driven land pressures and global solidarity networks. Largely, this is why SA’s land and mining debate remains trapped in a zero-sum struggle: commodity versus identity, traditional authority versus democracy, white majority-owned multinational mining house (except Patrice Motsepe and a few others) versus black community. This binary is not a failure of policy. It is a failure of imagination.
To break the stalemate, we must flip the script entirely and build a new system in the cracks of the old.
Four Innovations That Could Transform SA’s Land Future
These aren’t policy tweaks. They are deep systemic redesigns, which are practical, ambitious, and aligned with the urgent demands for land justice voiced across the country.
1. The “Living Land Title”: A Legal Hybrid That Ends the False Choice
SA’s land debate has been trapped between two inadequate options: individual freehold (land as commodity) and insecure communal tenure (land as identity without protection).
The Living Land Title creates a third way. It is issued to a democratically constituted community entity, such as a trust, cooperative or certified Traditional Council, and guarantees perpetual, secure tenure. Embedded in the title is a Community Consent clause, requiring a supermajority for any lease or sale, protecting against elite capture.
A mandatory Intergenerational Commons, including a school, cooperative garden, grazing land, or renewable energy microgrid, ensures shared benefit and intergenerational equity. This title makes land generative commons, not an elite possession.
This land reform strengthens democracy, not weakens it.
2. The “Soil & Soul Fund”: Financing Land Justice Without a Bankrupt Fiscus
Land reform is trapped because it relies on state budgets and commercial banks, both incapable of funding transformation at scale. The Soil & Soul Fund breaks this dependency. It is capitalised through:
A time-bound Common Good Levy on agricultural exports, mining revenues and commercial farming profits.
Diaspora bonds inviting global South Africans to invest in land justice.
A mandated allocation from large pension funds, especially those built on the labour of communities that lost land.
The fund finances land acquisition, post-settlement support, regenerative agriculture and cultural restoration, such as memorials, heritage sites and renewal centres.
It shifts the narrative from “state must pay” to a shared national social contract, acknowledging historical debt while investing in collective futures.
3. The “Customary Constitution”: Renewing Ancestral Governance in a Modern Era
One of the deepest tensions in rural SA lies in the gap between imposed forms of traditional authority and the lived expectations of communities whose governance practices have always been collective, relational and accountable.
The Customary Constitution draws directly from these indigenous principles. It offers a community-driven, culturally grounded process through which people can affirm, in their own language, customs and values, the rules that guide their shared life. Through inclusive dialogue, the community defines:
How leaders emerge and are entrusted with authority, based on service, lineage, merit and community confidence.
How land is held, shared and allocated, reflecting ancestral practices of custodianship rather than ownership.
How disputes are resolved, using restorative and consensus-based mechanisms.
How consent for mining or development is given, through collective deliberation rather than individual signatures.
Once affirmed through broad community agreement, the Customary Constitution becomes a recognised expression of the community’s will, binding on all, including companies seeking access to land.
This approach renews the oldest African governance principle: authority flows from the people, not over them.
It moves power away from individuals acting without accountability and restores it to the collective, where Free, Prior and Informed Consent becomes a living practice rooted in tradition, not a bureaucratic ritual imposed from outside.
4. The “Generational Tribunal”: A Living Archive of Land and Renewal
SA operates a mixed legal system, a hybrid of Roman-Dutch civilian law, English common law, customary law and religious personal law, yet cannot process the full weight of historical land dispossession. Many claims are lost, undocumented or buried in trauma.
The Intergenerational Tribunal is a non-judicial, statutory body that:
Investigates and publicly witnesses past and ongoing land injustices.
Collects oral histories and genealogies.
Maintains a public digital archive.
Issues Certificates of Moral Claim that communities can use in land negotiations.
Protects the intergenerational wealth and wellbeing of future generations.
It transforms buried pain into visible knowledge. It creates a national memory too powerful for policymakers to ignore. More importantly, it allows healing, not forgetting, to shape the future.
These innovations matter because each disrupts a different layer of the system:
The Living Land Title rewrites the rules of property.
The Soil & Soul Fund rewrites the financing logic.
The Customary Constitution rewrites the power dynamics.
The Intergenerational Tribunal rewrites the national narrative.
Together, they form the foundation of a new land governance regime, embedded with pluralistic, generative, democratic principles.
They answer the question that echoed in that Mining Indaba room: Who speaks for the land?
The response should be: The people rooted in it. Democratically. Collectively. With dignity and power.
It is clear that SA’s mining crisis is not technical; it is a crisis of governance and imagination, a land crisis, a democracy crisis.
The land is speaking. Communities are speaking. History is speaking. The future is calling. The only question left is: Will we finally listen?
The views expressed in this publication/article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA).
"KhoiKhoiBushman Indigenous People of South Africa put on record the attempt to ERASE ORIGINAL Southern Africa Rock Art History in Partnership with Universities and the Rupert Foundation.. We do not acknowledge this "New Rock Art" as the original Linton Panel discovered in 1918."
KhoiKhoiBushman Indgenous People of South Africa, as official recognnized by the United Nations in 2007does not include Bantu Xhosa West African Settlers, who are the Black Majority in South Africa. We REJECT this claim by Bantu Xhosa's in its entirety.
A new exhibition in Johannesburg titled ǃke e꞉ ǀxarra ǁke – People who are Different: Come Together celebrates the rock art of the San people, the first inhabitants of southern Africa. Presented by the University of the Witwatersrand’s Rock Art Research Institute and the Origins Centre, the exhibition includes an ultra-high-resolution facsimile of a San rock art panel called the Linton Panel. The panel contains the image chosen for South Africa’s national coat of arms. The exhibition also features a new artwork by descendants of the San people, as well as a book launch. We asked the head of the institute, Sam Challis, to tell us how the painting rose to such national prominence.
Who are the San and what’s their rock art about?
The names San and Bushman refer to the indigenous hunter-gatherers of southern Africa, and their descendants, whose ancestors lived here for many thousands of years. Both names have been used pejoratively – as demeaning terms – for centuries. But now both have been reclaimed as identities to be worn with pride. Some groups prefer either one term or the other, depending on the historical use in their region. South Africans prefer the word San while those in the Kalahari Desert region – and the artists from Nieu Bethesda in South Africa whose work we commissioned for the new exhibition – prefer Bushman.
The rock art is an indigenous archive of San religion: their beliefs about how to transcend realms to heal the sick, influence the movements of animals and control the weather. It is not a “menu” of animals they liked to eat, and these are no idle doodles or simple “records” of events.
An explanation of the Linton Panel (click to enlarge). Courtesy Rock Art Research Institute
In the 1860s and 1870s, two linguists, Bleek and Lloyd, recorded the language of San Bushmen prisoners being held in Cape Town. Later, scholars realised that these |Xam (San/pronounced “Kgamm”) testimonies produced a “fit” with rock art images, which until then had been poorly understood. Dorothea Bleek’s 1932 study Customs and Beliefs of the |Xam Bushmen proved an almost inexhaustible resource for understanding this religious art from the perspective of the artists. Especially when these beliefs intersected with those of the Maloti Mountain San and Kalahari Bushmen, and other communities who inherited them.
What San painting was used in the coat of arms?
In 2000, President Thabo Mbeki’s office approached the Rock Art Research Institute because they wanted an indigenous rock art image to grace the coat of arms of the new South Africa. (The old shield had contained ox wagons and other colonial images.) The institute’s scholars offered several appropriate options, and the government chose the human figures from the famous Linton Panel, which is displayed at Iziko South African Museum in Cape Town.
The design for the coat of arms. Courtesy Rock Art Research Institute
With various partners we have reproduced the panel digitally. The art can now be viewed on an interactive zoom console in which visitors can highlight various motifs with explanations.
The two human figures come from one painting of a male figure. In the original, he most likely represents a San healer and game control specialist. He’s been mirrored and stylised to form a gesture of greeting.
How did a San phrase become a national motto?
Mbeki’s office also asked the institute to deliver a new national motto using the |Xam San language. Our professor, David Lewis-Williams, chose the |Xam words “ǃke e꞉ ǀxarra ǁke” from the phrases “people who are different” and “come together”. It can be translated as “diverse people, unite”. The language is no longer spoken (and so does not favour any of the country’s 11 official languages) but it is important to recognise that the people survive. There will be 16 individuals of |Xam descent at the opening, from the Bushman Heritage Museum. Three of these are the artists whose work forms part of the exhibit, in a modern |Xam take on the imagery in the national coat of arms.
There’s also a book being launched?
It is very fortunate timing that the institute’s honorary research fellow, Jeremy Hollmann, is launching a revised edition of his book Customs and Beliefs of the |Xam with Wits University Press at this time. Based on Dorothea Bleek’s 1932 Customs and Beliefs of the |Xam Bushmen, it brings the testimony of the |Xam to a wider audience, making San beliefs more accessible.
Why is this exhibition important?
As part of Wits University’s centenary celebrations, the new exhibit takes a fresh look at the symbols of what it means to be South African while also reflecting on what it means to be colonised and marginalised, as the San were and are. We celebrate the efforts to illuminate the indigenous archive, and to decolonise the images of these and other African ancestors. The Rock Art Research Institute is the first and foremost centre of its kind in the world.
Wits University Press
From the 1980s, its scholars, with David Lewis-Williams, joined the academic fight to bring to light the religious, and serious, nature of indigenous images and history. From the 1990s, its teachings have spanned the globe and influenced hunter-gatherer studies from Spain to Siberia and from Cape Town to Canada.
From the late 1990s, under Ben Smith, it strengthened connections across Africa (hosting the digital collections of several other nations) and in the 2000s created the Origins Centre (which then became a separate entity).
The exhibition opens at Origins Centre in Johannesburg on 28 November 2022
Senior Researcher, University of the Witwatersrand
Disclosure statement
Sam Challis works for Wits University's Rock Art Research Institute. He receives funding from the National Research Foundation African Origins Platform (Grant no. AOP117735). RARI acknowledges the generous sponsorship of Canon SA and the Rupert Art Foundation. The exhibit is funded by the Wits Centenary Fund.
The Conversation is funded by the National Research Foundation, eight universities, including the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Rhodes University, Stellenbosch University and the Universities of Cape Town, Johannesburg, Kwa-Zulu Natal, Pretoria, and South Africa. It is hosted by the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Western Cape, the African Population and Health Research Centre and the Nigerian Academy of Science. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a Strategic Partner. more
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.
Republish this article
Support non-profit journalism
Dear Reader, I’m reaching out because The Conversation Africa is facing financial strain. As the philanthropic landscape shifts rapidly, funding for independent media is shrinking, putting our newsroom at real risk. We bring you free, evidence-based analysis straight from academic experts, helping millions make sense of our world. But quality journalism comes at a cost. To keep our content accessible to all without paywalls, we urgently need your help. If you value trusted, educational information in a world full of noise, please donate today. Your support right now will keep us publishing.
13 January 2020 - Tammy Hodgskiss and Amanda Esterhuysen
The Origin Centre has added a new wing that's perfect for a visit, the Rock Engraving Archive.
The Origins Centre housed on the campus of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg has just opened a new Rock Engraving Archive to the public. This is the biggest collection of rock engravings on display on the continent. It is the culmination of decades of shifting policy – and perceptions – of how South Africa should curate its rock art heritage. The exhibition marks a coming home of these extraordinary rocks that it’s now recognised should never have been removed from their natural environment.
The archive contains 76 boulders engraved with intricate images. The engravings depict animals (both realistic and mythological or zoomorphic) and geometric designs. Some have depictions of wagons or text.
Most of the engravings of animals may have been created by San hunter-gatherers, or their ancestors who were among the first people of southern Africa. There is an ongoing debate about whether the geometric images mark the arrival and movement of the Khoi or Khoekhoen stock-herding people. The geometrics may represent the spread and change of ideas among the San and a change in their hunter-gatherer way of life.
The majority of the engravings are on hard dolerite rocks. The mains techniques used to engrave the rocks are pecking or fine-lines, where the markings are made with a sharp object (such as a harder, denser rock or metal).
Some of the engravings can only be seen with lighting at a certain angle, as would have been the case when they were in their place of origin in the landscape – at certain times of day, and in certain light, the engravings would have ‘magically’ appeared. The sound that some rocks made when struck would have added to the experience on an auditory level, and a mark would have been left with each strike. Marks from the sharpening of tools and weapons against the hard surfaces also add a layer of meaning to the rocks.
A brand new installation at the Origins Rock Engraving Archive. Tammy Hodgskiss
There are other non-human traces to be found on some of the rock surfaces. Marks made by the repeated rubbing of animals against the rock surface, or through wind and water erosion.
The epic journey of the rocks
Today, every effort is made to conserve rock engravings in their original context. But in the first half of the 1900s many painted and engraved panels were removed to museum collections. At the time it was believed that this was the best way to protect them.
In the 1960s Wits University’s Dr Emil Paul Friede and Prof Revil Mason from the South African Archaeological Society assembled a major collection of rock engravings that had been removed from their original locations. The rocks had come from the Magaliesberg and around the Klerksdorp and Schweizer-Reneke region of the North West Province.
The engravings were arranged for exhibition to the public in a special display in the Johannesburg Zoological Gardens (now the Johannesburg Zoo). This was officially opened on 5 September 1970 as the Museum of South African Rock Art.
Workers move the boulders to Wits University’s Origins Centre. Tammy Hodgskiss
However, the exhibit was difficult to maintain, and staff and public grew increasingly uncomfortable about the social implications of displaying indigenous art in a zoo.
In the early 1990s the rock engraving exhibit was closed. The smaller pieces were taken to Museum Africa, but 36 larger pieces were left on display at the zoo. Over time the rock engravings at the zoo were neglected and became covered in moss.
In May 2000 the boulders were removed to Wits University under the curation of the Rock Art Research Institute, with funding from the Department of Arts and Culture.
Between 2000 and 2004 a team of conservators worked on cleaning, conserving and restoring these engravings. The engraved boulders housed in Museum Africa were moved to Wits University in 2005.
The boulders at the new museum, still wrapped in plastic to protect them. Tammy Hodgskiss
In 2017 these boulders were moved to the Origins Centre’s new wing and in 2019 the archive was opened to the public. The completion of the archive was funded by the National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences.
The stories that the engravings tell
The first debates and publications about South African rock art centred on who made the rock art and why. Most incorrectly attributing the art to foreigners. While these early interpretations were entirely untrue, the interest in rock art raised an awareness about the need to protect it from damage and destruction. This led to South Africa’s first heritage legislation – the Bushman-Relic Protection Act of 1911 – which protected rock art, artefacts, and burials, and controlled the export of material to foreign museums.
One of the intricate engravings on a boulder in the museum.
Origins Rock Engraving Archive/ Tammy Hodgskiss
Until the 1980s little attention was given to recording the original context of the rock engravings. This changed when researchers began to appreciate how the engravings interacted with the landscape – how the experience of the art transforms with the light, wind, rain, sounds and the perspective of the viewer. Many of the meanings of the engravings may be unknown to us but the stories and beliefs of numerous individuals have been carefully engraved on these boulders.
The Origins Centre Rock Engraving Archive is the largest archive of rock engravings in the country. With the Rock Art Research Institute, it aims to facilitate the collection and organising of information and interpretations about these displaced pieces of art.
These national treasures are now a permanent component of the Origins Centre Museum experience – go and explore it for yourself.
Special Committee on Decolonization Approves Draft Resolution on Tokelau as It Concludes 2009 Resumed Session
23 June 2009 General AssemblyGA/COL/3198 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on
Decolonization
11th Meeting (AM)
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION APPROVES DRAFT RESOLUTION ON TOKELAU AS IT CONCLUDES 2009 RESUMED SESSION
Members Hear from Titular Head of Government, Approve Report of Regional Seminar
The Special Committee on Decolonization concluded its resumed session this morning by taking up the question of Tokelau, the report of the Caribbean Regional Seminar and the report on issues related to its own work.
Acting without a vote, the Special Committee approved a draft resolution on the question of Tokelau, a Pacific Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by New Zealand, recommending that the General Assembly note the continued recognition by the Government of New Zealand of the right of the Territory’s people to self-determination and the firm commitment of both Tokelau and New Zealand to ongoing development for the long-term benefit of the Territory’s people.
While noting that referendums in 2006 and 2007 had not produced the two-thirds majority required to change the Territory’s non-self-governing status, the Assembly would further acknowledge the decision of the General Fono (the national Parliament) that consideration of any future act of self-determination would be deferred, and that New Zealand and Tokelau would devote renewed efforts to strengthening essential services and infrastructure on the atolls, thereby ensuring an enhanced quality of life for the people. The Assembly would also acknowledge Tokelau’s initiative in devising a strategic economic development plan for the period 2007-2010.
Introducing the draft resolution, the representative of Papua New Guinea said the text welcomed the assurance by the Government of New Zealand that it would continue to meet its obligations with respect to Tokelau. It also welcomed the cooperative attitude of other States and territories of the region and their support for Tokelau’s economic and political aspirations, and the Territory’s increasing participation in regional and international affairs. He reiterated the co-sponsors’ commendation for New Zealand’s readiness to cooperate with the Special Committee and its exemplary efforts in assisting the people of Tokelau in their endeavours to realize self-determination.
The representative of Fiji, the second co-sponsor, thanked New Zealand for its financial support of Tokelau, while also acknowledging the work of the United Nations and stressing his recognition of the decolonization processes in Tokelau and New Caledonia. Fiji saw no better way to achieve the Special Committee’s mandate.
Echoing that sentiment, Faipule Foua Toloa, Ulu o Tokelau (Titular Head of Government of Tokelau), said: “I believe that Tokelau is moving in the right direction and, already, the wind that fills our sails grows stronger day by day as we strengthen the capacity of our resources and develop our infrastructure.
Speaking as a petitioner prior to the Special Committee’s approval of the draft resolution, he said Tokelau would not give up its aspirations for self-determination, while stressing that the challenge for its leaders continued to be the strengthening of institutions and the unity of the people. The General Fono had resolved in February 2008 that a lot of work remained to be done in strengthening local capacity and infrastructure, and in promoting economic development. While work on self-determination would continue, it would be several years before another referendum was considered.
Like all nations around the globe, Tokelau was feeling the effects of the global financial crisis and taking measures to address it, while instilling confidence that its policies made the best use of scarce resources, he said. It was establishing its development priorities, setting realistic targets and working towards integrating good governance practices into its public management systems. Tokelau would then realign public expenditure to reflect the focus on those areas.
The relationship between Tokelau and New Zealand was significant, he said, as witnessed by their Joint Principles of Partnership signed in 2003 and the current support arrangement, which stood at NZ$43.1 million for 2008-2010. During its upcoming first meeting with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Council of Ongoing Government hoped to convey the importance of that special relationship. Tokelau would continue to seek New Zealand’s support as it strove to determine its own future.
He also outlined Tokelau’s efforts to contain the outbreak of H1N1 influenza and to address the effects of global warming and rising sea levels, pointing out that access to funding from the climate change adaptation programme had been thwarted by its status as a Non-Self-Governing Territory of New Zealand. He called on the international community to continue to advocate Tokelau’s position on that issue, and to take practical and immediate steps to reduce the types of activities that impacted negatively on the environment and caused global warming.
For its part, Tokelau was working on an energy policy that would allow its small atolls to operate on 100 per cent renewable energy, he said, adding that the Territory’s development priorities were identified in its National Strategic Plan for the next five years. Its other programmes included a joint Tokelau-New Zealand shipping project; the construction of two schools and a health centre under its infrastructure project; efforts to develop human resources capacity; a project to strengthen the delivery of village-level judicial services; and a waste management programme.
The Tokelau Trust Fund now stood at some NZ$56 million, he continued, pointing out that the Territory continued to build a reputable status in the region and at the international level. The ingredients of nation-building were now in place, including the Constitution and the flag. The Constitutional Committee would meet later this year to discuss governance structures. “We will line our canoe with the support from our main partner, New Zealand, in cooperation with this Committee, but at all times we will keep the interests of the people of Tokelau at the heart of our efforts. Our canoe will be lined with the elements of good governance, sustainable development strategies, robust infrastructure, qualified and experienced personnel and a clear vision for the direction that we want to take.”
New Zealand’s representative said the past year had been a challenging one for Tokelau, yet considerable achievements had been made. The global economic crisis had not bypassed the Territory, despite the isolation of its three remote atolls. Ensuring that the 1,500 people of the three atolls had access to essential services and enjoyed a good quality of life were core objectives for both Tokelau and New Zealand.
She said substantial efforts had been devoted to enhancing economic development and making improvements in the core sectors of water and sanitation and waste management. Finding programmes and strategies that worked for Tokelau and were fully compatible with local values was an important goal for New Zealand, as well as agencies of the international community. New Zealand was committed to working closely and cooperatively with the Ulu, his fellow leaders and officials to deliver the best possible service for the people of Tokelau in the present challenging times.
The increasing spread of H1N1 influenza had not left Tokelau untouched and its health system was under pressure as it dealt with a number of possible cases, she said. However, through very close cooperation with the World Health Organization and the New Zealand Ministry of Health, Tokelau was very well prepared and had support for the challenges that lay ahead. The new Prime Minister, during a forthcoming visit to Samoa, would meet with Tokelau’s leaders in Apia for the first time since the change of Government in November 2008. It would be an important opportunity to affirm New Zealand’s commitment to Tokelau, and the shared determination of both parties to work for a viable and forward-looking community on the atolls of Tokelau.
Also this morning, the Special Committee adopted the report of the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Implementation of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, to be annexed to the Special Committee’s report for the current session of the General Assembly. The Seminar took place in Saint Kitts and Nevis on 12-14 May.
In other action, the Committee approved, also without a vote, a text on matters related to its work (document A/AC.109/2009/L.14), including the convening of a series of meetings away from Headquarters; representation at seminars, meetings and conferences of intergovernmental and other organizations; the pattern of conferences; control and limitation of documentation; consideration of the list of Territories to which the Declaration on the Granting of Independence is applicable; the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism; and participation by representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Special Committee’s work.
In connection with the Second International Decade, the Special Committee would inform the Assembly of its decision to organize, in 2010, a seminar in the Pacific region, to be attended by representatives of all Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Closing the session, Special Committee Chair R.M. Marty M. Natalegawa ( Indonesia) reiterated his conviction that the Committee must redouble its efforts to help ensure that the decolonization process became more relevant and beneficial to the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories under its purview. Throughout its substantive session, the Special Committee had endorsed 11 draft resolutions and 3 reports, and would submit all relevant information and documents to the General Assembly through the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization).
The Special Committee, he continued, had an ongoing responsibility to make tangible progress in implementing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960), subsequent relevant General Assembly resolutions, and the principles and provisions of the United Nations Charter. The Special Committee must also continue exploring further how to guide the decolonization process through the many challenges and opportunities of the contemporary world.
He said the upcoming conclusion of the Second International Decade underlined the urgent need to support the Non-Self-Governing Territories in establishing the conditions for full self-government, which would allow them to demonstrate their will regarding their future political status through a valid internationally recognized act of self-determination, eventually leading to their “de-listing”.
Special Committee on Decolonization Unanimously Approves Text Calling for Direct Negotiations over Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
18 June 2009 General AssemblyGA/COL/3196 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on
Decolonization
9th Meeting (AM)
special committee on decolonization unanimously approves text calling for direct negotiations over falkland Islands (malvinas)
Members Hear from Foreign Minister of Argentina,
Petitioners, Including Members of Territorial Legislative Assembly
Having heard a statement by the Foreign Minister of Argentina in addition to petitioners from the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the Special Committee on Decolonization recommended today that the General Assembly call for direct negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom over that Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Introducing the draft resolution, which the Special Committee approved without a vote, Chile’s representative said the text reflected the main elements of the doctrine formulated by the United Nations over the years with regard to the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). It acknowledged the “special and particular colonial situation”, which differed from other colonial situations owing to the existence of a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom. The text also specified that the only way to put an end to the question was through a negotiated settlement of the dispute between the Governments of the two countries.
Noting that the text requested the parties to consolidate the process of dialogue and cooperation by resuming negotiations in pursuit of a solution, in accordance with United Nations resolutions on the subject, he expressed regret that, despite the time and numerous resolutions adopted by the United Nations to date, there had been no commencement of direct diplomatic negotiations between the parties with a view to finding a fair and definitive solution to the pending dispute relating to sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas.
Addressing the Special Committee prior to action on the draft, Jorge Taiana, Argentina’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship, reiterated his country’s “solid and permanent protest” since 1833 over “what was a manifest eviction of the Argentine authorities and population present on the Islands at the time”. The United Kingdom’s actions had fractured Argentina’s political unity and territorial integrity, by an act of usurpation which had been reaffirmed by the ensuing implantation of an alien population and systematic impediments blocking continental Argentines wishing to settle or own lands on the Islands. That alien population could never be considered a subjugated population or one subjected to a colonial Power. To pretend to apply the principle of self-determination to that population was a blunt distortion of reason, justice, law and history.
He pointed out that the United Kingdom called for the application of the principle of self-determination while simultaneously refusing to resume negotiations on sovereignty, thus ignoring the explicit and reiterated mandate of the international community. The United Kingdom alleged that it would only accept a resumption of negotiations should the inhabitants of the Islands so wish, thereby ignoring the will of United Nations Member States. That country was thus unilaterally introducing a precondition that did not figure in any of the relevant resolutions. For its part, Argentina reiterated its willingness to negotiate on the basis of international law, the principles of the United Nations Charter and the provisions of numerous resolutions.
Petitioner Richard Stevens, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said in that regard that it would be unfair to apply sovereignty rights to the Falklands case alone. “Imagine every country complying with these demands with every international border reverting back to how it was in 1833. Would America for example, return part of California to Mexico, or Russia demand Alaska?” That view of territorial integrity would also lead to unbelievable global chaos.
He went on to say that whoever would be elected to the Legislative Assembly toward the end of 2009 would come to power with a strong mandate regarding the Islands’ right to self-determination. They would ask the Special Committee to examine Argentina’s rhetoric, regardless of that country’s size and influence, and recognize the islanders’ right, as a small community, to live lives of their own choice rather than being swallowed up by an alien Power that saw them as impostors in their own land.
Another Member of the Legislative Council, Janet Robertson, said there were fundamental reasons why there was “no foreseeable prospect” that the United Kingdom would agree to negotiate. Argentina asserted that the principle of self-determination was not applicable due to the pre-existing sovereignty dispute, and that the principle of territorial integrity was of superior validity to that of self-determination.
Annexation by the Argentine State was, therefore, the only acceptable solution to the Government of Argentina, a goal enshrined in its Constitution, she said. That pre-determined outcome was wholly contrary to the wishes and interests of the islanders and, consequently, unacceptable to the United Kingdom. A resumption of negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom, without the participation and agreement of the islanders, could not, by definition, lead to a peaceful solution.
Addressing the Committee on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), the representative of Paraguay said the grouping and its associated States had repeatedly reaffirmed Argentina’s legitimate right in the dispute, a position supported by representatives of several Latin American countries. They had expressed full support for Argentina’s just claim of sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and adjoining maritime areas, and urged the resumption of negotiations between Argentina and United Kingdom with a view to finding a peaceful and final settlement to the sovereignty dispute.
Sierra Leone representative, however, while encouraging the parties to engage in peaceful dialogue, taking into account the interests and wishes of the islanders, expressed support for the right of the islanders to exercise their right to self-determination.
Other speakers were representatives of China, Russian Federation, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Indonesia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Grenada, Tunisia and Saint Lucia.
Also addressing the Special Committee were two Argentinean petitioners: Dolores Reynolds and Marcelo Luis Vernet.
The Special Committee will continue its debate on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) at 10 a.m. Friday, 19 June, when it is also expected to take up the situation in all 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Background
The Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples met this morning to hear petitioners on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Before it was a Secretariat working paper on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) (document A/AC.109/2009/13) outlining constitutional and political developments, as well as progress on mine clearance, economic and social conditions, and the future status of the Territory, among other things.
A new Constitution was approved in 2008 and entered into force on 1 January 2009, the working paper says. According to the administering Power, the new document, as compared with the 1985 Constitution, enhances local democracy, establishes a greater degree of internal self-government and provides greater transparency and accountability, such as through the creation of a Public Accounts Committee and a Complaints Commissioner. Moreover, it is in line with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. By its terms, the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly, may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory, but full power to make laws is reserved for the British Crown.
On 6 November 2008, the paper states, the Government of Argentina protested against a “unilateral act” by the United Kingdom “whereby it claims to have adopted a new ‘constitution’ for the Malvinas Islands”, in disregard of General Assembly and Special Committee resolutions and in “violation of the spirit of the provisional understandings under the sovereign formula” reached by Argentina and the United Kingdom. In response, the United Kingdom rejected those assertions on 3 December 2008.
The paper says that on 28 November 2008, the Ninth Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction -- known as the Ottawa Convention -- decided by consensus to grant the United Kingdom an extension until 1 March 2019 to complete mine clearance. At that meeting, the United Kingdom announced its intent to clear three mined areas and set up a national mine action authority.
According to the working paper, the representative of the United Kingdom noted, in a letter to the Assembly President dated 26 September 2008, that the Falkland Islands are not a colonial enclave. Their inhabitants have chosen to retain their link with the United Kingdom and there can be no negotiations on the sovereignty of the Islands unless the islanders wish to do so. In his New Year’s message to the Territory in January 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown restated his commitment to the islanders’ right to self-determination against the backdrop of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the conflict over the islands between the United Kingdom and Argentina.
The paper recalls that President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina criticized the United Kingdom in her 23 September 2008 address to the General Assembly, for resolutely refusing to discuss the issue of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Territory, requesting that the United Nations once again urge the United Kingdom to comply with international law and demonstrate a serious wish to build a different world and a different citizenry. At a meeting of the Special Committee on 12 June 2008, Argentina’s Foreign Minister, Jorge Taiana, reiterated his country’s inalienable rights over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia, and the South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas, unlawfully occupied by the United Kingdom through an act of force.
In a draft resolution on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the Special Committee recommends that the General Assembly reiterate that the way to end the special and particular colonial situation of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is through a peaceful negotiated settlement of the sovereignty dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. The Assembly would, by other terms of the draft (contained in document A/AC.109/2009/L.8), take note of the views expressed by the President of Argentina and express regret that implementation of its resolutions on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) has not yet started in spite of widespread international support for negotiations between the two Governments. The Assembly would further request the two Governments to consolidate the current process of dialogue and cooperation through the resumption of negotiations in order to find a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute as soon as possible.
Petitioners
RICHARD STEVENS, Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said the Argentines would argue on four main topics: the Spanish colonial claim inherited at independence in 1816; the brief partial and sporadic post-independence occupation before 1833; the Islands’ proximity to Argentina; and the transient nature of the Falklands population. It would be unfair to determine sovereignty rights by those arguments and apply them to the Falklands case alone, but otherwise, the implications would be huge.
“Imagine every country complying with these demands with every international border reverting back to how it was in 1833,” he said, asking whether the United States, for example, would return part of California to Mexico, or the Russian Federation demand Alaska. Such claims of territorial integrity would also mean unbelievable global chaos. It was better to concentrate on the islanders and their achievements, while demonstrating how they had earned their right to determine their own future.
He said that, while the islanders were accused by Argentina of being an itinerant, planted people shipped in by the British, their historic diversity continued to the present time, with individuals and families hailing from all over the world. They had a strong identity and knew the people who had built the Territory, from its roads, farms, shops and hotels to its businesses and modern private sector. All reasonable nations looked to negotiations as the way forward in the modern world, but Argentina was talking about the islanders’ total capitulation, a completely different concept.
Argentina would introduce the modern equivalent of the very thing that the Special Committee had been created to dissolve, he continued. Whoever was elected to the Legislative Assembly towards year’s end would come to power with a strong mandate regarding the Islands’ right to self-determination. They would ask the Special Committee to examine Argentina’s rhetoric, regardless of its size and influence, and recognize the islanders’ right, as a small community, to live lives of their own choice rather than be swallowed up by an alien Power that saw them as impostors in their own land.
JANET ROBERTSON, Member of the Legislative Assembly, said there were fundamental reasons why there was no foreseeable prospect that the United Kingdom would agree to negotiate. First of all, the islanders’ right to self-determination had been extended through the Constitution. Argentina asserted that the principle of self-determination was not applicable to the Falkland Islands due to a pre-existing sovereignty dispute and that the principle of territorial integrity was of superior validity to the principle of self-determination. The Argentine State’s annexation of the Islands was therefore the only acceptable solution to the Government of Argentina and, as such, was a goal enshrined in its Constitution. That predetermined outcome was wholly contrary to the wishes and interests of the islanders and consequently unacceptable to the United Kingdom.
She said that a resumption of negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom without the participation and agreement of the inhabitants could not, by definition, lead to a peaceful solution unless the express wishes of the islanders were deliberately and cynically silenced by force. While there was no apparent threat of a repetition of Argentina’s 1982 invasion, it was evident that other types of force were an ongoing facet of relations between the two countries, thereby pre-empting peaceful negotiations. They included withdrawal from regional cooperation on fisheries and hydrocarbons until such time as sovereignty was placed on the agenda; the ban on charter flights across Argentine airspace unless Argentine carriers were used to and from Argentine airfields; and the insistence on the use of “Puerto Argentino” instead of “ Stanley” for the Territory’s capital. Those actions pointed to a level of aggression that was not peacefully intended.
Such actions made peaceful cooperation on areas of mutual interest an ever-receding dream in the South Atlantic, she continued. Argentina claimed that those actions were in response to “unilateral” actions by the Government of the United Kingdom, such as the extension of its fisheries licensing regime to include 25‑year fishing quotas. In fact, those legitimate measures were the result of the Falkland Islands Government using its powers to develop long-term protection and development of its fisheries and represented sound management practices for the benefit of the islanders and the environment. Resolutions on the questions of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) were alone in referring, not to the inalienable right of the respective inhabitants to self-determination, but merely to the interests of the population.
It had never been clearly established why the Special Committee considered that, of all remaining denominated colonial peoples in the world, only Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders were denied that right, she said. When a 2008 meeting of the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) had approved an amendment to remove a recent insertion into a draft resolution –- thus qualifying the principle of self-determination with the words “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” –-delegates speaking in favour of the motion had expressed their deepest concern at the attempt to qualify one of the principles of the United Nations Charter. In any case, the principle of self-determination did not apply to the Falkland Islands. The Argentine occupation had been very brief, having occurred while their ownership was in plain and documented dispute. Therefore, the Territory had never formed a part of Argentina. They existed as a political entity in its current form for considerable time before the establishment of Argentina’s modern boundaries in the mid-nineteenth century.
DOLORES REYNOLDS, an Argentine economist, said she graduated from the Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires and was a direct descendent of Tomas Bridges, an Anglican pastor whose name was intimately linked with the history of the Malvinas Islands and Tierra del Fuego.
Stressing that she had spent her childhood in that province of South Argentina, she said there were many deep links between the islanders and the Argentine mainland, and her family’s story illustrated those links. Many British people who had arrived after 1833 understood that the two lands were linked by powerful bonds. The Argentine Republic’s just claim of sovereignty had been taken by force.
She said members of her family and other inhabitants, as well as many British inhabitants, had made a contribution to the culture and life of Argentina. The islanders’ isolation was absurd in the present era of globalization, and everybody would benefit from an end to it. Integration with the Argentine Republic would help provide many benefits, including in the areas of energy, public health, education, tourism and vibrant culture. The Special Committee should insist that the United Kingdom resume negotiations.
MARCELO LUIS VERNET said that, as a citizen of Argentina, he was tied to the Islands through family history. The Malvinas were naturally Argentine land and, since 1824, they had “an estancia”, with workers arriving from all corners of Argentina. “We were the people of the Malvinas”, who had formed a hard-working and hospitable population. An ancestor, Luis Vernet, had been a military commander on the Islands, monitoring compliance with fishing rules.
“Our land was stolen from us by an imperial Power for its own interests, but the Malvinas remained an Argentine land,” he said, stressing that usurpation was a violation not only of civil and political rights, but also of natural law. The sacred duty of the Argentine nation was to ensure the integrity of its name and respect for its rights. The Soledad and Malvina Islands were symbols of national identity and the name “Malvina” was very popular in Argentina. Those truths could not be invented or imposed.
One could not refuse to recognize that there was a sovereignty conflict, he said. Argentina’s Constitution contained a temporary clause which conveyed its conviction of the rightful nature of its claim. The clause was temporary because the country hoped the Islands would be returned. However, the Constitution also referred to respect for the Malvinas way of life. The inhabitants were also part of the Islands’ history. They were citizens of the usurping nation, living on the usurped land, but if one asked their names, one would discover that their fathers were English workers who had arrived during the industrial revolution, without land or future.
He said their history was very similar to that of his own predecessors, adding that people could think alike and work together. One of the possible ends to the story was that the two peoples’ respective grandchildren could go to the port of Soledad to recognize the first Argentine settler on the Islands. They might fall in love, thus closing a wide circle. The Special Committee should promote constructive dialogue between Argentina and the United Kingdom to find a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the sovereignty dispute.
Statements
HERALDO MUÑOZ ( Chile) introduced the draft resolution on the “Question of the Falklands Islands (Malvinas)” (document A/AC.109/2009/L.8), saying it reflected the main elements of the doctrine formulated by the United Nations over the years with regard to that question. The text acknowledged the special and particular colonial situation, which differed from others because of the existence of a sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom. It also specified that the only way to put an end to that question was a negotiated settlement of the dispute.
He expressed regret that, despite the time and numerous resolutions adopted to date, direct diplomatic negotiations between the parties had not commenced. Chile endorsed fully the statement to be made by the delegation of Paraguay on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) countries and associated States. Like other Latin American countries, Chile supported Argentina’s rights in the sovereignty dispute.
The issue was of concern to the Western Hemisphere, he said, noting that the thirty-ninth General Assembly of the Organization of American States, held in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, on 2-4 June, had adopted resolution AG/DEC 61, “Declaration on the Question of the Malvinas Islands”. The issue was also a matter of concern to the Ibero-American community. Chile reiterated that there was no valid reason for delaying the solution to the Malvinas question.
JORGE TAIANA, Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of Argentina, reiterated his country’s “solid and permanent protest” since 1833 over “what was a manifest eviction of the Argentine authorities and population present on the Islands at the time”. The land had been under Argentine sovereignty and peaceful and uninterrupted rule, when in 1833 it had been seized by the United Kingdom, thus fracturing the political unity and territorial integrity of the Argentine Republic. Argentina had never consented to that act of usurpation, which had been reaffirmed with the ensuing implantation of an alien population and systematic impediment to continental Argentines settling or owning land on the Islands. That population could never be considered a subjugated population or one subject to a colonial Power. To pretend to apply the principle of self-determination to that population was a blunt distortion of reason, justice, law and history.
Noting that that the United Kingdom called for the application of the principle of self-determination while simultaneously refusing to resume negotiations on sovereignty, he said it thus ignored the explicit and reiterated mandate of the international community, as contained in successive resolutions of the United Nations, the Organization of American States and many other forums. The United Kingdom alleged that it would only accept a resumption of negotiations if the islanders so wished, ignoring the will of United Nations Member States. It was thus unilaterally introducing a precondition that did not figure in any of the relevant resolutions, seeking to benefit from General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), distorting its interpretation and altering its primary goal, which was none other than ending colonial situations rather than perpetuating them.
He said that subjecting the resumption of negotiations to the dispute to the “wish” of the islanders was nothing but a trick to which the United Kingdom resorted in order to elude the United Nations imperative. Argentina reiterated its commitment to the right of self-determination but rejected the manipulation of that key principle by a Member State, in favour of a population artificially implanted by that country in a land usurped from Argentina by force, and which formed an indivisible part of Argentine territory. Argentina was not alone in that line of reasoning; the General Assembly had unequivocally ratified the applicability of the principle of territorial integrity to the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” each time that the United Kingdom had sought to include references to the principle of self-determination in draft resolutions on that matter.
The United Kingdom had carried out unilateral actions in the disputed area, distorting the bilateral cooperation agreed under the sovereignty formula, he said. Among those actions were the illicit application of a quota regime on fisheries resources, the illegitimate granting of licences to carry out hydrocarbon activities, and the British refusal to carry out non-scheduled flights between mainland Argentina and the Malvinas Islands. The United Kingdom had also attempted to include parts of the Argentine national territory in its submission to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, and erected a military base on the Islands. Those actions violated the mandate contained in Assembly resolution 31/49 (1976), which called upon the parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply the introduction of unilateral modifications while the Islands were going through the process recommended by the United Nations.
He said his country had immediately protested the “constitution” that the United Kingdom had granted to the Islands in November 2008, yet another unilateral action on a part of Argentine territory that contravened United Nations resolutions. The United Kingdom pretended to disguise, behind a supposedly “modern” or “post-colonial” constitutionalism, a colonial situation of special and particular characteristics resulting from the usurpation of Argentine territory by force, the expulsion of a local population and its replacement by one of British origin. Argentina expected the United Kingdom to pursue the path of dialogue in compliance with what had been established by the international community in many resolutions. For its part, Argentina reiterated its permanent willingness to negotiate on the basis of international law, the principles of the Charter and the provisions of numerous resolutions.
ELADIO LOIZAGA (Paraguay), speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), said MERCOSUR and associated States had reaffirmed repeatedly since the group’s creation the legitimate right of the Argentine Republic in the dispute regarding the Question of the Malvinas Islands. At a meeting in June 1996 the Presidents of the MERCOSUR member countries, as well as the Presidents of Bolivia and Chile, had approved the “Declaración Sobre las Malvinas”, which recorded that the interests of the Hemisphere backed a resolution to the dispute and urged that the two Governments find a quick resolution in conformity with the United Nations and the Organization of American States.
That position had been repeated in June 1999, when the sixteenth meeting of MERCOSUR had approved a new declaration and repeated their commitment to urge the two Governments to resume negotiations. More recently, at the last Summit of MERCOSUR in Salvador, Brazil, in December 2008, the group had reaffirmed the terms of the 1996 Declaration and repeated their support for Argentina’s legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute. It had also said that unilateral measures were not compatible with decisions of the United Nations. MERCOSUR urged the Special Committee to call on the two Governments to resume negotiations and quickly find a just solution to their long dispute.
LIU ZHENMIN ( China) noted that the General Assembly and Special Committee had always paid attention to the question of the Falklands (Malvinas) and passed resolutions appealing to Argentina and the United Kingdom to engage in negotiations in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. That reflected the aspiration of the overwhelming majority of the United Nations membership. China always held that territorial disputes should be resolved through peaceful negotiations, a principle that should be promoted by the international community. Hopefully the United Kingdom and Argentina would continue to engage in peaceful, constructive dialogue on the question of the Falklands (Malvinas) in pursuit of a peaceful and fair resolution of the issue.
VICTORIA SULIMANI ( Sierra Leone) reaffirmed her delegation’s commitment to the principle of self-determination of all peoples, noting that colonialism in all its forms and manifestations was incompatible with the principles of the Charter, Chapter 11 of which ensured the responsibility of administrating Powers to promote the well-being of the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories. It was in that spirit that Sierra Leone supported the position that the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) should be allowed to exercise their right to self-determination.
Sierra Leone believed equally that the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom should be resolved through peaceful means, in accordance with relevant resolutions, she said. The two countries should be encouraged to engage in peaceful dialogue, taking into account the interests and wishes of the islanders. At the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, Sierra Leone remained committed to decolonization, believing that self-determination was a prerequisite for the realization of fundamental human rights
KONSTANTIN DOLGOV ( Russian Federation) voiced support for the draft resolution, saying he hoped it would be approved without a vote. Hopefully it would be in accordance with the framework of bilateral negotiations and resolutions adopted by the General Assembly.
BASHAR JA’AFARI ( Syria) said the statement by the Argentine Minister showed his country’s desire for a peaceful settlement of the issue. Today’s meeting reaffirmed Argentina’s importance to the tasks of the Special Committee. The statement also showed Argentina’s belief in democracy in international relations, which was a foundation of that country’s foreign policy.
He said his country agreed with the stance taken at the Arab-Latin American Summit, held in Doha in March 2009, as well that taken by the “Group of 77” developing countries and China and the Non-Aligned Movement. Syria supported the draft resolution and believed that its approval by consensus would reaffirm the international community’s role in resolving the issue. The resumption of dialogue and meetings between the two Governments would help lead to a solution.
JORGE VALERO (Venezuela), endorsing the MERCOSUR statement, said his country was among the co-sponsors of the draft resolution, as in previous years, and reiterated its full support for Argentina’s just claim of legitimate sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, as well as adjoining maritime areas. Venezuela also reaffirmed that resuming bilateral negotiations for a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the dispute was the right way to resolve the anachronistic colonial situation of the Malvinas. Its firm support of that position had been ratified once again in a joint declaration issued during a visit by President Hugo Chavez to Argentina in May.
At the multilateral level, there had been successive resolutions of the United Nations and statements of the Organization of American States, he noted. Many other forums had urged a prompt solution to the long sovereignty dispute, in support of Argentina’s claims. “We must insist on the need to put an end, as contained in many resolutions on the question of the Malvinas Islands, to the long sovereignty dispute between Argentina and United Kingdom.” In that context, Venezuela encouraged the good offices conferred by the General Assembly and the Secretary-General, aimed at bringing the parties closer together.
He went on to say that 176 years had passed since the act that had disrupted Argentina’s territorial unity and integrity. At that time, the United Kingdom had expelled the population, practising expansion. The Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands belonged to Argentina, and Venezuela supported the statement by that country’s Foreign Minister, who had justly shown that his country’s claim was entirely just.
ABELARDO MORENO ( Cuba) said the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) was among the issues that had been, for the longest time, under permanent consideration by the United Nations. The Special Committee had approved 43 draft resolutions on that matter, and the General Assembly had adopted 10 resolutions. As defined in resolution 2065 (XX), the question of the Malvinas involved a dispute over the sovereignty of the Islands between Argentina and the United Kingdom. It was clearly stipulated that the dispute should be settled through negotiations, taking into account the objectives and provisions of the Charter, as well as the interests of the islanders. It was a fact that the Malvinas had been occupied in 1833 by the United Kingdom, which had then forcefully expelled the population settled there, subsequently replacing Argentine settlers with British ones. Now Argentine citizens were not even allowed to return or settle on the Islands.
Since then, he said, the Argentine Government had been willing to recover, through negotiations, the exercise of its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, in accordance with relevant resolutions. Regrettably, despite continuous calls by the Special Committee and various Assembly resolutions, a definitive solution to the long sovereignty dispute was no closer today. Cuba reiterated its support for Argentina’s legitimate right in the dispute over the Islands, which were part of that Latin American sister nation. The support had been reiterated at the highest levels and in different regional forums, such as the Rio Group, the Iberoamerican Community of Nations and the South American Community of Nations.
He reiterated his country’s call for a negotiated, just and definitive solution to the dispute at the earliest possible time, taking into account both respect for Argentine territorial integrity and recognition of the islanders’ interests. Cuba urged the United Kingdom to consider the successive calls by the Special Committee to hold negotiations and give a positive response to Argentina’s reiterated willingness to renew the bilateral negotiations process. There must be no unilateral actions modifying the situation of the Islands. As one of the co-sponsors of the draft, Cuba called upon all members of the Special Committee to support it so it could be approved without a vote.
HASAN KLEIB ( Indonesia) said the historical and political background of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) case formed a particular and special dimension that differed from so-called traditional situations. Resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII) took note of the existence of a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom, and encouraged both parties to seek a peaceful solution to the problem. Both resolutions also identified the need to accelerate negotiations for an early settlement.
Other relevant United Nations resolutions provided guidance on the need to address the case by means of a peaceful negotiated settlement, in the best interests of the islanders, he said, adding that his country therefore urged the resumption of negotiations, in accordance with relevant resolutions and decisions, and based on the principle of territorial integrity and full acknowledgement of the interests of the Islands’ population. Indonesia was heartened to learn of the good relationship established between the two Governments in various areas, and wished to encourage both parties to use that good relationship as a foundation for resuming negotiations and exploring all possible means towards a peaceful and mutually acceptable solution.
PABLO SOLON ROMERO (Bolivia), noting that his country was a co-sponsor of the draft resolution and endorsed the MERCOSUR statement, urged the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume negotiations and quickly find a just solution to their dispute. The country that had refused dialogue in that situation enjoyed a privileged seat on the Security Council and the Falklands (Malvinas) situation confirmed that the existence of permanent members was no safeguard of peaceful solutions to conflict. Permanent membership should be abolished in the twenty-first century.
MARIA FERNANDA ESPINOSA ( Ecuador) endorsed the MERCOSUR statement and noted that since 1945, the Argentine Republic had reaffirmed, within the United Nations, its international right to the Malvinas. Ecuador supported consensus approval of the draft before the Special Committee and urged both parties to resume talks as soon as possible. Bolivia also urged the United Kingdom to meet the appeals of the United Nations.
DESSIMA M. WILLIAMS ( Grenada) said she had heard the long and entwined history of the region and lamented the fact that unresolved issues from previous centuries had been carried into the twenty-first century. The numerous resolutions passed by the United Nations on the Falklands (Malvinas) issue should guide the Special Committee. Grenada called for a resumption of talks between the two Governments and looked forward to consensus approval of the draft resolution.
Action on Draft
As the draft resolution was presented for action, the representative of Saint Lucia, speaking in explanation of position, proposed that the last preambular paragraph, reaffirming the need for the parties to take due account of the interests of the Islands’ population, should be included in the operative part of the text in order add “give weight and substance” to it.
The representative of Chile said that in order to continue with the Special Committee’s work, his delegation favoured maintaining the text as presented.
The representative of Saint Lucia responded by saying he was not suggesting a change in language, but wished to highlight something that was dealt with “almost en passant”.
The representatives of Bolivia, Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Grenada voiced their support for the text in its original form, saying it reflected practically all concerns and points of view expressed during consultations. Perhaps the suggestions made would be considered in the future, but for now, members of the Special Committee should support the text, which traditionally was approved by consensus.
The representative of Grenada added in that regard his country’s concerns could be identified in other parts of the text.
MARTY M. NATALEGAWA ( Indonesia) Chair of the Special Committee, said those comments would be duly reflected in the meeting’s records.
Acting without a vote, the Special Committee then approved the draft resolution on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
Explanations of Vote
Mr. DONATUS KEITH ST. AIMEE (Saint Lucia) said he had never said that he did not want the draft resolution approved by consensus, but had made a constructive suggestion, and was disappointed that his remarks had been interpreted to mean he was against the draft. Saint Lucia hoped to have an opportunity in a future statement to explain its difficulties with the text.
JALEL SNOUSSI ( Tunisia) welcomed the consensus approval, saying it showed the international community’s commitment to solving the matter definitively. Tunisia hoped the two Governments would return to the negotiating table in pursuit of a just solution.
The Special Committee on Decolonization approved by consensus today two draft resolutions concerning implementation of the Independence Declaration, and one on economic and other activities affecting the interests of peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories.
By the first draft, entitled “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” (document A/AC.109/2009/L.10), the General Assembly would reaffirm its determination to take all necessary steps to bring about the complete and speedy eradication of colonialism and the faithful observance by all States of relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter, the Declaration and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Assembly would affirm, by other terms of the text, its support for the aspirations of people under colonial rule to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, and call upon administering Powers to cooperate fully with the Special Committee to develop and finalize, before the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, a constructive programme of work for Non-Self-Governing Territories on a case-by-case basis.
Recalling with satisfaction the professional, open and transparent nature of the February 2006 and October 2007 referendums to determine the future status of Tokelau, the Assembly would request that the Special Committee continue seeking suitable means to implement the Declaration immediately and fully, and to carry out Assembly-approved actions regarding the First and Second Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism in all Territories that had not yet exercised their right to self-determination. Those actions should include creating specific proposals to end colonialism; examining the implementation of relevant resolutions and the situation in the Territories; visits and special missions to the Territories; seminars; and annual observances of the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Further by that text, the Assembly would call upon the administering Powers to ensure that their activities in Territories under their administration promoted development and did not adversely affect the interests of their inhabitants, to guarantee the inalienable rights of non-self-governing peoples to their natural resources, and to protect their property rights. All States would be urged to provide moral and material assistance, as needed. The Assembly would request that the Secretary-General, specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nationsprovided assistance to the Territories and continued to do so after the exercise of their right to self-determination.
The second draft -- titled “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations” (document A/AC.109/2008/L.11) -- would have the Assembly recommend that all States intensify efforts within those entities to ensure full and effective implementation of the Declaration. It would reaffirm the need to extend all appropriate assistance to the peoples of the Territories and urge the specialized agencies and organizations that had not yet provided assistance to the Territories to do so as soon as possible.
Also by the text, the agencies and other United Nations institutions would be requested to strengthen existing support measures and formulate appropriate assistance programmes to the remaining Territories, within the framework of their respective mandates, while providing information on: environmental problems facing the Territories; the impact of natural disasters; ways to help them fight drug trafficking, money-laundering and other illegal activities; and the illegal exploitation of marine and natural resources. The Assembly would also recommend that the executive heads of the United Nations bodies formulate, in cooperation with regional organizations, concrete proposals for the full implementation of relevant resolutions.
Further by the text, the Assembly would request the continued updating and wide dissemination of an information leaflet on assistance programmes available to the Territories, published by the Department of Public Information (DPI) and the Department of Political Affairs (DPA), in consultation with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), specialized agencies and the Special Committee. It would welcome continued efforts by UNDP to maintain close liaison among the specialized agencies and other organizations, and to provide assistance to the peoples of the Territories.
The Assembly would, by other terms, encourage the Territories to establish and strengthen disaster preparedness and management institutions and policies, with the assistance of relevant specialized agencies. It would request that the administering Powers facilitate the participation of appointed and elected territorial representatives in meetings and conferences within the United Nations system, so that the Territories may benefit from their activities. It would request also that the Economic and Social Council continue to consider, in consultation with the Special Committee, appropriate measures for coordinating policies and activities to implement relevant Assembly resolutions.
By the terms of the third text, titled “Economic and other activities, which affect the interests of peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories” (document A/AC.9/2008/L.12), the Assembly would affirm the value of foreign economic investment, undertaken in collaboration with the peoples of the Territories and in accordance with their wishes, to make a valid contribution to their socio-economic development, especially during times of economic and financial crisis.
The Assembly would reaffirm, by other terms, the Charter responsibility of the administering Powers to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, while reaffirming at the same time the legitimate rights of their peoples over their natural resources. In that connection, the Assembly would also reaffirm its concern about activities aimed at exploiting the natural resources that were the heritage and human resources of those peoples.
By further terms, the Assembly would reaffirm the need to avoid any economic and other activities adversely affecting the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and call upon all Governments that had not yet done so to end the activities of national and corporate bodies under their jurisdiction that were detrimental to the interests of the Territories’ inhabitants. It would urge the administering Powers to take effective measures to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable right of those peoples to their natural resources and to maintain control over the future development of those resources.
The Assembly would call upon the administering Powers concerned to ensure that no discriminatory working conditions prevailed in the Territories under their administration, and to promote in each Territory a fair system of wages. It would appeal to trade unions, non-governmental organizations and individuals to continue efforts to promote the economic well-being of the Territories’ peoples, and appeal to the media to disseminate information about developments in that regard.
Special Committee on Decolonization Approves Text Calling on United States to Expedite Self-Determination Process for Puerto Rico
15 June 2009 General AssemblyGA/COL/3193 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on GA/COL/3193
Decolonization
5th & 6th Meetings (AM & PM)
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION APPROVES TEXT CALLING ON UNITED STATES TO EXPEDITE SELF-DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICO
Members Hear Petitioners Speak up for Independence, Statehood, Free Association
The Special Committee on Decolonization this afternoon approved a draft resolution calling upon the Government of the United States to expedite a process that would allow the Puerto Rican people to exercise fully their inalienable right to self-determination and independence.
By the terms of that text, which the Special Committee approved by consensus, the decolonization body -– formally known as the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples -– requested that the President of the United States release all Puerto Rican political prisoners serving sentences for cases relating to the Non-Self-Governing Territory’s struggle for independence -– including two who had been imprisoned for more than 28 years. It expressed serious concern about actions carried out against Puerto Rican independence fighters and encouraged rigorous investigations of those actions, in cooperation with relevant authorities.
The Special Committee, also known as the “Committee of 24”, urged the United States Government to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques island and in Ceiba to the Puerto Rican people; respect their inhabitants’ fundamental human rights to health and economic development; and expedite and cover the costs of decontaminating the areas previously used for military exercises.
Introducing the draft resolution, Cuba’s representative said Puerto Rico was a Latin American and Caribbean country with its own national identity, and its long struggle for independence was deeply rooted in a sense of identity. Notwithstanding 27 resolutions and decisions approved by the Special Committee and the General Assembly, the people of the Commonwealth were still unable to exercise their legitimate right to genuine self-determination and independence due to continuing economic, political and social domination by the United States, the colonial Power.
The Special Committee also heard 32 petitioners present the views of various Puerto Rican groups, parties and organizations. Many reiterated the Special Committee’s request that the General Assembly call on the United States Government to begin a just and equitable process to allow Puerto Ricans to exercise their right to self-determination, in accordance with Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the Special Committee’s numerous resolutions and decisions on the matter.
Petitioners also called on the United States Government immediately to suspend the death penalty in Puerto Rico, which was prohibited by the Commonwealth’s Constitution. They raised concerns about racial discrimination and economic exploitation, disproportionate prison sentences handed down to Puerto Rican independence fighters in United States jails, the supremacy of United States federal law over local legislation, and the environmental damage caused by the United States industries and nuclear testing on Puerto Rican islands.
Fernando Martin, Executive President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, said it was particularly important that the General Assembly consider the question of Puerto Rico, since 2010 would mark the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, as well as more than 200 years of emancipation and independence in the rest of Latin America. The Assembly’s consideration of the issue would exert moral and legal pressure on the United States Government to stop using pretexts and excuses to avoid complying with its decolonization obligations under international law.
But while some petitioners advocated independence, others were in favour of statehood. Jose Adames of the Literacy Center Anacona, said more than 95 per cent of Puerto Rico’s population had consistently voted either for direct statehood, as the fifty-first state of the Union or in a free association arrangement with the United States. Anthony Mele, Chairman of the Sixty-fifth Infantry Regiment Honour Task Force, said Puerto Ricans enjoyed citizenship and equal protection under the United States Bill of Rights. However, the sovereign rights of those 4 million people to vote in national elections were obstructed by arcane legislation that the United States Congress could amend easily. It was a national disgrace that Puerto Rican soldiers fought and died in wars under the United States flag, but were unable to vote for representatives in Congress. Statehood for Puerto Rico was a right, and the Special Committee must call on the United States Government to grant it.
Hector Ferrer of the Popular Democratic Party, however, favoured enhanced Commonwealth status, which would be non-territorial and non-colonial. Despite President Barack Obama’s commitment to resolving the case of Puerto Rico and guaranteeing a voice for the Commonwealth in discussions on its status, Congress had recently passed a bill which contravened that commitment. Two rounds of voting proposed in the bill was intended to manipulate the results in favour of statehood and did not provide for the commonwealth option. A constitutional assembly on status would be the best mechanism for determining Puerto Rico’s future.
Other petitioners addressing the Special Committee were representatives of the following organizations: Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico; People’s Law Office (on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild International Committee); American Association of Jurists; El Partido Nacionalista de Puerto Rico; Movimiento Liberador; PROELA; Puertorriquenos Unidos en Accion; Movimiento Independentista Nacional Hostosiano de Puerto Rico; Comite Puerto Rico en la ONU; Frente Autonomista; Coalicion Puertorriquena contra la Pena de Muerte; El Comite de Derechos Humanos de Puerto Rico; Colectivo de Trabajo por la Independencia de Puerto Rico Area de Mayaguez; Soho Art Festival; Socialist Workers Party; National Advancement for Puerto Rican Culture; Alianza por Libre Asociacion Soberana; Frente Patriotico Arecibeno; Primavida Inc.; Accion Democratica Puertorriquena; DC-6; Colectivo Puertorriqueno Pro Independencia; Hostos Grand Jury Resistance Campaign; Ministerio Latino; Movimiento de Afirmacion Viequense; Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques; Frente Socialista de Puerto Rico; and Comite Familiares y Amigos Avelino Gonzalez Claudio.
Members of delegations speaking today were the representatives of Dominica (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Nicaragua, Panama, Ecuador, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Venezuela, Bolivia, Syria and Iran.
The Special Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, 16 June, to consider the questions of New Caledonia and Western Sahara.
Background
The Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples met this morning to hear petitioners from Puerto Rico.
Committee members had before them a report prepared by the Rapporteur (document A/AC.109/2009/L.13), which notes that, under the current arrangements, authority over Puerto Rico’s defence, international relations, external trade and monetary matters remains with the United States, while the Commonwealth has autonomy over taxes, social policies and most local affairs. While eligible for United States citizenship, people born in Puerto Rico do not have the right to vote in that country unless they reside on the mainland. In addition, the Commonwealth’s Supreme Court has recognized the existence of Puerto Rican citizenship in a court decision subsequently certified by the island’s Department of State.
According to the report, the United States has maintained that Puerto Rico had exercised its right to self-determination, attained a full measure of self-government, decided freely and democratically to enter into a free association with the United States and was, therefore, beyond the purview of United Nations consideration, as stated explicitly in resolution 748 (III) of 1953. However, Puerto Rican forces in favour of decolonization and independence have contested this affirmation.
The document further highlights the continuing deadlock among Puerto Rico’s parties as to whether the island’s territorial status should change: the Partido Popular Democrático (PPD) favours the status quo while the Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP) favours full United States statehood and the smaller Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño (PIP) supports independence for the island. The United States Congress reopened the debate over the island’s political status in 2007. Introduced in the House of Representatives that year, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act called for a plebiscite no later than 31 December 2009, and for the ballot to provide voters with two options: to continue the existing form of territorial status or pursue a path towards a constitutionally viable permanent non-territorial status.
According to the report, another bill, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, would recognize the right of the island’s people to call a constitutional convention through which they would exercise their natural right to self-determination and establish a mechanism for congressional consideration of such a decision. By the terms of the amended Democracy Act, passed in subcommittee in October 2007, if, in the 2009 referendum, Puerto Ricans would choose to continue their existing status, a new referendum would be held every eight years. If the other option were to win, a separate referendum no later than 2011 would give Puerto Ricans the option of statehood or becoming a sovereign nation, independent from or in free association with the United States.
The report also outlines the outcome of the November 2008 general election in which Luis Fortuño won the island’s governorship and his PNP consolidated its control of the legislature. PNP’s Pedro Pierluisi won the office of Resident Commissioner in Washington, D.C. It is estimated that a significant number of those who voted for PNP did so to punish PPD, in particular former Governor Anibal Acevedo Vilá, for poor administration and a number of unpopular measures. A link has been made between the former Governor’s defeat and criminal charges brought against him and his associates by the United States for violations of electoral funding regulations. Some political commentators have expressed the view that the charges were aimed at damaging Mr. Acevedo Vila’s electoral possibilities, since he and his party have supported Puerto Rican sovereignty and expansion of the powers of the Free Associated State to several areas now under the powers of the United States Congress. PPD and the former Governor have also called for the General Assembly to examine the issue of Puerto Rico.
The report points out that the press in Puerto Rico reported widely that, on 2 January 2009, then President-elect Barack Obama sent a message to the swearing-in ceremony for Governor Luis Fortuño in which he reportedly reiterated that he would try to resolve the colonial case of Puerto Rico during his first term. He explained that self-determination was a basic right of Puerto Ricans and that he would work with all relevant sectors to guarantee that the Commonwealth had a voice to discuss the topic in Washington, D.C.
Among other questions relating to the status of Puerto Rico and its relationship with the United States, the report also addresses the latter’s military presence, particularly on the island of Vieques; the imprisonment on the mainland of pro-independence Puerto Ricans accused of seditious conspiracy and weapons possession; and the imposition of the death penalty against Puerto Ricans convicted on federal charges.
The Special Committee also had before it a draft resolution on the Special Committee decision of 9 June 2008 concerning Puerto Rico (document A/AC.109/2009/L.7), by which the Special Committee would call upon the United States Government to expedite a process that would allow the full exercise of the Puerto Rican people’s inalienable right to self-determination and independence. It would note the broad support of eminent persons, Governments and political forces in Latin America and the Caribbean for the Commonwealth’s independence.
By further terms of that draft, the Special Committee would express serious concern about actions carried out against Puerto Rican independence fighters, and encourage the investigation of those actions with “the necessary rigour” and the cooperation of relevant authorities. Also by the text, the Special Committee would urge the United States Government to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques island and in Ceiba; respect fundamental human rights, such as the right to health and economic development; and expedite and cover the costs of decontaminating the areas previously used in military exercises.
The Special Committee would, by further terms of the text, request that the United States President release Oscar Lopez Rivera and Carlos Alberto Torres, who have been serving sentences in mainland prisons for more than 28 years, as has Avelino Gonzalez Claudio -- all of them Puerto Rican political prisoners serving sentences for cases relating to the struggle for independence -- as well as others serving sentences for cases relating to that struggle.
Introduction of Draft Resolution
ABELARDO MORENO (Cuba), introducing the draft on the Special Committee decision of 9 June 2008 concerning Puerto Rico, said the massive presence of petitioners before the Special Committee today clearly illustrated the high level of interest in and attention to the colonial question of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth’s people remained unable to exercise their legitimate right to genuine self-determination, while the United States, the colonial Power, maintained its economic, political and social domination over that brotherly Latin American and Caribbean nation, which had its own national and cultural identity. Despite the 27 resolutions and decisions of the Special Committee and the General Assembly, little progress had been made to reach a definitive solution.
He said the text before the Special Committee stressed the urgent need for the United States Government to foster a process allowing the Puerto Rican people to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination, as established by resolution 1514 (XV) and numerous resolutions adopted by the Special Committee. It also expressed concern that, despite several initiatives by political representatives from Puerto Rico, a decolonization process that would meet the Puerto Rican people’s aspirations had not been set in motion.
As in previous years, he continued, the draft stated that, because of its culture, history, traditions and particularly its people’s unswerving will, Puerto Rico was and would continue to be a Latin American and Caribbean nation with its own national identity. As in previous years, the draft called on the President of the United States to release three political prisoners serving sentences in mainland jails and reiterated its request that the General Assembly review the question of Puerto Rico in a comprehensive manner and in all its aspects.
Petitioners
Many petitioners urged the Special Committee to adopt the draft resolution, insisting that, despite assertions of autonomy, Puerto Rico was still one of the world’s few remaining colonies. Speakers described their people’s fight for self-determination and independence, requesting that the Special Committee urge the General Assembly to take up the matter by 2010 and call on the United States Government to begin a just and equitable process to allow Puerto Ricans to exercise their right to self-determination, as called for in resolution 1514 (XV). In his 27 February statement during the Special Committee’s inaugural session, the Secretary-General had stated that the decolonization process had remained unresolved for far too long, and that concrete results were needed.
ARTURO HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, President, Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, echoed the sentiments of many speakers when he said that Puerto Rico’s decolonization process must be determined by Puerto Ricans, not the United States Congress.
FERNANDO MARTIN, Executive President, Puerto Rican Independence Party, said it was particularly important that the Assembly consider the question of Puerto Rico, since 2010 marked the end of the Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism as well as more than 200 years of emancipation and independence in Latin America. The Assembly’s consideration of the issue would put moral and legal pressure on the United States Government to stop using pretexts and excuses to avoid complying with its decolonization obligations under international law.
JAN SUSLER, People’s Law Office, speaking on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild International Committee, said that the April 2009 Summit of the Americas had illustrated the consequences of United States colonial control over Puerto Rico, which continued to be deprived of a seat at the table among the nations of the world.
Like many other petitioners, she called for the release of Carlos Alberto Torres and Oscar Lopez Rivera, who for almost 30 years had been serving sentences harsher than imposed on people convicted of similar and more serious crimes. The United States Government should immediately stop criminalizing, harassing and attacking all Puerto Ricans fighting for independence, immediately release Avelino Gonzalez Claudio, an independence fighter arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2008, and dismiss all pending charges against him.
Further, she called on United States officials to identify and hold criminally liable all those responsible for the assassination of Filiberto Ojeda Rios, Santiago Mari Pesquera, Carlos Muniz Varela and other militants of the Puerto Rican independence movement; withdraw from and formally return Vieques to the Puerto Ricans living there; cease detonating unexploded ordinances there, completely clean up the pollution caused by the United States Navy’s 60-year occupation of the island and compensate the local people for related damage to their health; and end the death penalty in Puerto Rico, which contravened Puerto Rican legislation, among other things.
Several speakers stressed that Puerto Rico was a Caribbean and Latin American nation with its own distinct national identity, but its colonial status had made it difficult to preserve its cultural heritage and achieve sustainable development. Puerto Ricans were a minority in the United States suffering racial discrimination and exploitation.
CARLOS HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, member of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, said many people still supported the belief that Puerto Ricans should remain politically and economically dependent on the United States, and many in that country took advantage of the Commonwealth’s political divisions to avoid the issue of its political status. The Special Committee merely approved the same resolution year after year. Puerto Ricans deserved better from the United Nations, particularly Latin American Member States. There was a need for solidarity and action to force the United States to respond seriously to the issue. He said he stood ready to put the proposed Constitutional Assembly in place so that all ideological sectors could reclaim justice and dignity, and negotiate a better future for Puerto Ricans.
EDGARDO ROMAN ESPADA, Coalicion Puertorriquena contra la Penal de Muerte, proposed that the Special Committee incorporate the issue of the death penalty into the list of issues relating to Puerto Rico’s self-determination, noting that, beginning as early as 1900, the Puerto Rican people had expressed themselves against it on many occasions. With the approval of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a clear expression of rejection of the death penalty had been incorporated into the Bill of Rights, but the Government of the United States had unilaterally imposed it by means of federal legislation.
“The United States authorities can impose the death penalty upon the citizens of Puerto Rico in spite of the fact that we have not given them the right to end the life of any one of us,” he said, requesting the Special Committee to evaluate how such an anomaly affected the Commonwealth’s right to self-determination. Puerto Rico was the only nation in the world in which the processes in cases of capital punishment were conducted in a language different from the native one. While Spanish was spoken in Puerto Rico, English was the language used by the Federal Court. Pointing out that there were currently five cases pending before the Federal District Court for the District of Puerto Rico in which the death penalty could be imposed, he said there was a serious conflict between the right to self-determination and imposition of the death penalty. The United States must immediately and totally suspend its application of the death penalty in Puerto Rico.
As several speakers demanded the immediate release of all Puerto Rican political prisoners, SAM MANUEL, Socialist Workers Party, said they were serving “draconian sentences in US jails for the ‘crime’ of fighting for the independence and dignity of their country”. Carlos Alberto Torres and Marie Haydée Beltrán Torres had been locked up for 29 years, and Oscar Lopez for 28 -- “some of the longest-held political prisoners in the world”. Avelino Gonzalez Claudio had been jailed for two years without bail.
EDUARDO VILLANUEVA MUÑOZ, El Comite de Derechos Humanos de Puerto Rico, pointed out the contradiction of federal law defining as crime fighting another crime –- maintaining a colonial regime. The clause of supremacy forced the United States federal authorities to prevail wherever there was a conflict with Puerto Rican local laws. President Obama demanded respect for human rights in many countries, but maintained a colonial regime in Puerto Rico. The existence of the death penalty and political prisoners were not conducive to Puerto Rico’s self-determination. The people of Puerto Rico had limited civil rights and the United States discriminated against those whose ideas were different from those of its Government.
RICARDO PARET VELEZ, Colectivo de Trabajo por la Independencia de Puerto Rico Area de Mayaguez, said the most serious problems facing Puerto Rico were rooted in colonialism. They included environmental degradation, quick loss of arable lands, forests and coastal areas as a result of the activities of so-called developers, as well as the chemical, pharmaceutical and other industries. Among other priority issues were an alarming increase in criminality and drug use, high suicide rates and poor medical services. In addition, the privatization of public agencies had led to mass dismissals in the interests of the wealthy and of major transnational and United States corporations.
Mr. MANUEL recalled in that regard that tens of thousands of unionists and students in Puerto Rico had taken to the streets last week, demanding an end to the Government’s plans to lay off 30,000 workers. Today, Puerto Rico’s official unemployment rate stood at nearly 15 per cent, 50 per cent higher than that of the United States. Under the new “fiscal emergency” law, Luis Fortuno’s administration would freeze wages and essentially tear up the union contracts of public employees.
He said imperialist investors had demanded sharp assaults on what they called Puerto Rico’s “welfare state” -– federal payments such as food stamps and housing subsidies -- upon which Washington had relied for decades to cushion the effects of super-exploitation. The people of Puerto Rico and workers and farmers in the United States shared a common enemy –- billionaire families in the United States and their Government in Washington. For that reason, a successful fight for Puerto Rico’s independence was not only in the interests of its own people, but also that of the vast majority of people in the United States.
NILDA LUZ REXACH, Executive Director, National Advancement of Puerto Rican Culture, said Puerto Ricans had United States citizenship and, during recent elections, most of them had voted for Puerto Rico, which already had an elected Governor, to become the fifty-first state of the United States. If Congress could vote to send Puerto Rican soldiers to war, than Puerto Ricans should be able to vote for representatives in Congress. The Special Committee should listen to those voices calling for statehood.
HECTOR J. FERRER, Popular Democratic Party, said PPD defended the right of Puerto Ricans to decide their future through self-determination, favouring enhanced Commonwealth status, which would be non-territorial and non-colonial. During his presidential campaign, President Obama had promised that his Administration would try to resolve the case of Puerto Rico and that he would work to guarantee that the Commonwealth had a voice in discussions on its status. He had rejected the statements that sovereignty could be transferred to Puerto Rico unilaterally by the United States. Even though the President was committed to working with the Congress, a bill had recently been presented to Congress which contravened the President’s determination. Two rounds of voting proposed in the bill was intended to manipulate the results in favour of statehood and did not provide for the commonwealth option. A constitutional assembly on status would be the best mechanism for determining Puerto Rico’s future.
JOSE ADAMES, Literary Center Anacaona (CLAHI) advocated a declaration of statehood by Puerto Rico, insisting that the Commonwealth was not a colony and that Puerto Ricans were already American citizens. “How would you feel if every year someone asked you: ‘Do you want to lose the citizenship you had since you were born?’” The Puerto Rican government was working like that of any state of the Union, and all that was missing was a declaration of state to start eliminating all the discrimination that its people were suffering at the hands of their own Government. The so-called decolonization of Puerto Rico was pushed by those looking to distract the attention of the Special Committee.
Those calling for independence, self-determination, plebiscite or any similar kind of definition represented the past and were promoting their miniscule interests over those of the majority, he said. “Please stop this relentless and insensitive […] debate. We are plying with the citizenship and American passport of millions of people.” More than 95 per cent of Puerto Rico’s population had consistently voted for statehood, 45 per cent for direct statehood and 40 per cent for free association, while independence had received below 5 per cent.
ALEIDA CENTENO-RODROGUEZ, Frente Patriotico Arecibeno, like other petitioners, addressed the consequences of several nuclear tests carried out by the United States, characterizing them as “acts of environmental terrorism”, adding that colonialism in Puerto Rico was degenerating into an ecological disaster.
ANITA VELEZ-MITCHELL, Primavida Inc., said Puerto Ricans were United States citizens, but they could not vote in mainland presidential elections and had no voice in the United Nations unless invited by Cuba to speak. Hopefully, there would be hope for a change in how the Organization perceived Puerto Rico, which should be accorded the voice and respect it deserved, moving it away from its vulnerable position as a colony and towards the security of statehood at independence.
ANTHONY MELE, Chairman, Sixty-fifth Infantry Regiment Honour Task Force, said the 1914 Jones Act granted full United States citizenship to all Puerto Ricans on the island and their progeny. It afforded them equal protection under the law and was guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The United States could not honour its signature to the United Nations Charter while it denied sovereignty to one segment of its own citizenry, justified by an arcane piece of extraneous legislation.
He called upon the Special Committee to remind all Member States that the sovereign right of 4 million Americans to vote in national elections was obstructed by legislation that could easily be amended by Congress. It would be a national disgrace if soldiers who fought, bled, died and were buried under the United States flag continued to be denied equal medical treatment. “We are not begging for a fifty-first star on the United States flag. What we are saying is the price for placing that star on the United States flag has been paid in full with the currency of blood. Our account is satisfied.”
Several petitioners addressed the situation on the island of Vieques following 60 years of exercises by the United States military.
FRANCISCO VELGARA, Movimento de Afirmacion Viequense, said the United States Armed Forces had left great environmental damage on the island and there was a general deterioration in people’s health. Heavy metals were to be found in the soil and the pollution of local waters made it risky to eat fish. The bombs used by the United States Navy contained dangerous and toxic substances, and despite the withdrawal of the Armed Forces, explosions of remaining ordnance continued. Thus, the bombing of Vieques had not ended, all of which pointed to violations of the human rights of the island’s inhabitants. The United States Navy should be held accountable for the damage it had inflicted.
MYRNA V PAGAN, Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques, said the local communities had no human rights, being the victims of bombing and expropriation. Depleted uranium had been dropped on the island by mistake and continued to poison the people. “We may never recover from that mistake.” Yet the Navy refused to accept responsibility for decimating the health of thousands of people as a result of land, water and air contamination.
It was encouraging that the Director of the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry had recently agreed publicly to take a fresh look at the Vieques situation, she continued. Yet, in recent years, the people of the island had enjoyed the freedom from bombing, but still remained victims of the control and whims of the Federal Government and the lack of independent action on behalf of the Estado Libre Asociado, which danced to a colonial tune, “and the devil take the men, women and children of Vieques who continue to sicken and die”.
On 18 May 2009, the United States Department of Justice had used “sovereign immunity” in the legal case in which 7,100 Viequenses had filed suit against the United States Navy. The Navy should not be allowed to hide the truth about its actions, its violation of laws and regulations, and the harm it had caused to the health of the people of Vieques by using the “sovereign immunity” defence. The Special Committee was invited to stand with the people of Vieques in the spirit of truth and justice and in honour of its own affirmations of fundamental human rights. The United States Government should compensate the islanders for the harm they had suffered.
GIOVANNIA ANGELICA ACOSTA BUONO, Frente Socialista de Puerto Rico, said the fact that Puerto Rico remained a colony was not in doubt, and the colonial situation must be considered by the General Assembly. Yet some said Puerto Rico was a colony because it wished to be. At the same time, there had been campaigns of harassment against those protesting against colonialism as well as aggression against groups of journalists, growing repression of Latin American nationals coming to work in Puerto Rico and increased recruitment of Puerto Rican citizens into the United States Army. Given the increased United States presence and control, the United States military, legal and political mechanisms must withdraw from Puerto Rico and release political prisoners.
HARRIET NESBIT, Harriet Nesbit Halfway Houses, advocated statehood for Puerto Rico, saying it was not a colony. It had an elected Governor and appreciated the $32 billion it received in aid from the United States. The Constitution of the United States said “all American citizens have constitutional rights” and the progressive people of Puerto Rico were making their unique contribution to the betterment of society. With its beauty, tourism and industrialization, Puerto Rico was an asset that enhanced the image of the United States.
SANTIAGO FELIX, Ministerio Latino, said Puerto Rico had never accepted the idea of being a colony and had opted for Commonwealth status. The United States had granted citizenship to Puerto Ricans, but it was not quite understandable how such people could be citizens without having a right to elect the President of the United States.
Petitioners also addressed the Commonwealth’s fiscal autonomy, voting rights and the treatment of Puerto Rican political prisoners by the United States, among other issues.
Action on Draft
CRISPIN GREGOIRE ( Dominica), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said decolonization and the exercise of the legitimate right to self-determination of peoples continued to be a top priority for the Movement, which reiterated its strong support for the Special Committee’s work and urged the administering Powers to grant it their full support and cooperation. The Movement also renewed its call upon Member States to speed up the decolonization process towards the complete elimination of colonialism, including by supporting effective implementation of the Plan of Action of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010). The Movement also reaffirmed its position on the question of Puerto Rico, contained in the Final Document of the Ministerial Meeting of the its Coordinating Bureau, held in Havana in April 2009.
The colonial question of Puerto Rico had been under consideration of the Special Committee for more than 35 years and had yielded a total of 27 resolutions and decisions, he said. The Movement welcomed the fact that, over the last 10 years, the Special Committee had adopted its draft resolutions on that issue by consensus. It strongly supported those resolutions, which were in full agreement with the Movement’s traditional position on the question of Puerto Rico, and called for their expeditious implementation. The Movement reaffirmed the Puerto Rican people’s right to self-determination and independence, and called on the Government of the United States to assume its responsibility to expedite a process that would allow them fully to exercise that inalienable right. The United States should also return the occupied land and installations on Vieques island and at the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station to the Puerto Rican people, who constituted a Latin American and Caribbean nation.
JAIME HERMIDA CASTILLO ( Nicaragua) stressed the importance of decolonizing Puerto Rico and expressed hope that the Special Committee would adopt the draft resolution by consensus. The text reflected the Special Committee’s commitment to the exercise of the Puerto Rican people’s legitimate right to self-determination. Nicaragua would always defend the right of peoples to independence and would never tire of saying that Puerto Rico was a Latin American and Caribbean nation. Its people were standard bearers in the fight for freedom against colonialism and imperialism, showing an aspiration for full sovereignty, self-determination and independence.
Information provided by the petitioners was very valuable, he continued, noting that Puerto Rican patriots had spoken out against the death penalty, called for the release of their compatriots and expressed hope that the General Assembly would immediately consider the question of Puerto Rico. The Special Committee had considered that situation for many years and there was an urgent need to start implementing the relevant resolutions. At the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, Puerto Rico still did not exercise its right to self-determination, and its full sovereignty must be recognized without delay. Puerto Rico should not be the exception in Latin America and the Caribbean. It had much to contribute to the community of nations.
GIANCARLO SOLER TORRIJOS ( Panama), noting that Latin America would celebrate the bicentennial of its fight for independence in 2010, pointed out that one Latin American nation had not attained self-determination and the resolution of that situation must be a priority. The Special Committee must call for a review of the existing status quo to guarantee full implementation of the Declaration contained in the historic resolution 1514 (XV). The report of the United States Government’s working group on Puerto Rico recognized that the nation was subject to a colonial regime. Panama joined those who believed that the question of Puerto Rico should be placed on the General Assembly’s agenda. It was up to the Puerto Rican people to make any final decision on their country’s status. Hopefully, once adopted by consensus, the draft resolution would repeat a request that the matter be placed on the General Assembly’s agenda.
MARIA FERNANDA ESPINOSA ( Ecuador), speaking in explanation of position before action on the draft resolution, said 11 of the General Assembly’s resolutions on Puerto Rico made reference to the call for it to take up the matter. Ecuador was a co-sponsor of the draft resolution before the Special Committee, which represented its commitment to the island’s cause and aspirations, as a Latin American and Caribbean nation with its own national identity, to be able to join the concert of independent nations in the near future.
CAMILLO GONSALVES (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) said the Puerto Rican people’s right to self-determination was accepted by most nations and had been reaffirmed during the April 2009 Ministerial Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement Coordinating Bureau in Cuba. Puerto Ricans may be in favour of independence, statehood, autonomy or a continuation of the status quo. The decision was theirs alone. The voices raised today were not intended to offer solutions, but to express solidarity with that cause. The Special Committee was ill-equipped to divine the breadth and depth of the constituencies that the petitioners before the Committee purported to represent.
He said that what seemed beyond debate, however, was the responsibility of the United States to follow through with the logical consequences of its decision to end its bombing and military exercises in Vieques island and carry out a safe and effective, environmentally friendly clean-up. It must also expedite the process that would allow Puerto Ricans to exercise their right to self-determination in a way that respected the rights of all Puerto Ricans, regardless of political alignment.
JULIO ESCALONA ( Venezuela) said his country was a co-sponsor of the draft resolution and defended the inalienable right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination. During its 515 years of existence, Puerto Rican had been fighting for its independence under hostile and difficult conditions, necessitating many heroic actions. The Special Committee had expressed its solidarity with Puerto Rico, but the Commonwealth remained under the political, economic and social domination of the United States. Venezuela reiterated its appeal to the United States to provide for a process that would allow Puerto Ricans to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence.
PABLO SOLÓN-ROMERO ( Bolivia) said the twenty-first century should be a time for multilateral action leading to tangible results. Political will and visions of renewal were needed in order to accept changes and structural transformations in societies. That was important for the restoration of international public trust in the United Nations system. Solutions must respond to people’s true expectations.
He said the cause of Puerto Rico was one of the challenges that the United Nations must face if it wished to contribute to a solution that would allow the Puerto Rican people to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence. Bolivia fully supported giving the Puerto Rican people an opportunity to decide their own future on the basis of their Latin American and Caribbean identity. The petitioners heard today confirmed the will of the Puerto Rican people to continue fighting for independence.
MANAR TALEB ( Syria) said the 27 resolutions and decisions reaffirming the inalienable right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination and independence also reaffirmed that they were part of the Latin American and Caribbean region. Syria urged the United States to assume its responsibility to accelerate the process that would allow them to exercise their right to self-determination. Syria had fully endorsed the outcome document of the July 2006 Fourteenth Ministerial Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Havana, which reiterated the Movement’s traditional stance regarding Puerto Rico. The document requested implementation of relevant decisions on Puerto Rico, and Syria looked forward to the Special Committee’s consensus adoption of the draft.
AMIR HOSSEIN HOSSEINI (Iran), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the issue of decolonization should remain a top priority on the agenda of the United Nations as long as millions of people in the Non-Self-Governing Territories hoped to receive help towards achieving independence. They certainly deserved a better life and should be able freely to decide their own future. Iran hoped that, by approving the draft by consensus, the Special Committee would be able to help the international community take decisive steps to help the Puerto Rican people exercise fully their right to self-determination.
The Special Committee then approved the draft resolution on Puerto Rico by consensus.
Following that action, the representative of Cuba thanked delegations for approving the text for the tenth consecutive year. For Cuba, the draft resolution was not only a fundamental duty, but proof of its historic commitment to the sister nation of Puerto Rico and patriots there, who for several centuries had been setting inspiring examples in their fight for self-determination and independence.
More than 100 years of colonial domination had not been enough to deprive the Puerto Rican people of their culture and identity, he said. That fact alone showed the unswerving vocation for independence that was deeply rooted in that Latin American and Caribbean island. All those years of endurance and struggle entitled Puerto Rico to hope, and Puerto Ricans could always count on the solidarity of Cuba, which would continue to uphold the legitimate right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination and independence.
Special Committee on Decolonization Approves 3 Draft Resolutions during Opening Meeting of Its 2009 Resumed Session
8 June 2009 General AssemblyGA/COL/3191 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on
Decolonization
3rd Meeting (AM)
special committee on decolonization approves 3 draft resolutions During opening meeting of its 2009 resumed session
Acting by consensus as it began its resumed 2009 session this morning, the Special Committee on Decolonization approved three draft resolutions, on dissemination of decolonization information; the question of sending visiting and special missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories; and on information from those Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the United Nations Charter.
By the terms of the text on dissemination of information on decolonization(document A/AC.109/2009/L.5), approved as orally amended, the General Assembly would approve activities of the Department of Public Information (DPI) and the Department of Political Affairs (DPA) in that field, in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions on decolonization, particularly publication of the information leaflet titled What the UN Can Do to Assist Non-Self-Governing Territories, which was updated on the Organization’s decolonization website in May. The Assembly would also encourage continued updating and wide dissemination of the leaflet.
Also by that text, the Assembly would request that the Secretary-General further enhance information on the decolonization website and continue to include the full series of reports of regional seminars on decolonization, statements and scholarly papers presented during the seminars, and links to the full series of reports by the Special Committee. The Assembly would, by further terms, request that DPI continue efforts to update web-based information on the assistance programmes available to Non-Self-Governing Territories, and request that DPI and DPA implement the Special Committee’s recommendations and continue efforts to publicize the Organization’s decolonization work through all print, broadcast and Internet media.
At the outset of the Special Committee’s consideration of that text, Paula Refolo, DPI’s Director of Strategic Communications, and Freda McKay, Chief of DPA’s Decolonization Unit, highlighted their respective departments’ activities to disseminate information about the decolonization efforts of the United Nations.
Ms. Refolo, presenting the Secretary-General’s report on the dissemination of information on decolonization (document A/AC.109/2009/18) covering April 2008 to March 2009, said DPI continued to provide coverage of decolonization activities, such as meetings of the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) and the Special Committee, formally known as the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Four recently issued press releases had resulted from coverage by a DPI press officer of the Special Committee’s Caribbean Regional Seminar in Saint Kitts and Nevis from 12 to 14 May. The Secretary-General’s message to that event had been highlighted by the United Nations News Centre.
The What the UN Can Do to Assist Non-Self-Governing Territories leaflet was updated to include the activities of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) in Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean, which DPI planned to upload on the Organization’s decolonization website page. DPI also planned to work with DPA’s Decolonization Unit ‑‑ which maintained the decolonization page ‑‑ to create a mailing list for people interested in receiving up-to-date information on decolonization.
In sum, 51 press releases had been issued in English and French on meetings, statements and hearings of various United Nations bodies, she said, adding that the question of decolonization was discussed on the Department’s guided tours, in which more than 300,000 visitors had participated in 2008. In terms of DPI’s television and radio operations, an interview with the United Nations Envoy to Western Sahara, on his visit to Morocco and Algeria in February, had been aired on United Nations Radio, the Chinese Unit of which had also produced two features on the work of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO).
She said that the News Centre web portal, one of the most frequently visited areas on the United Nations website, had distributed articles on decolonization to 54,000 subscribers in French and English, which had been picked up by external websites, including popular news aggregators. For example, a story on the Secretary-General’s February address to the Special Committee had been carried by MercoPress, Scoop Independent News, EIN News and Indigenous People’s Issues Today. Also, decolonization issues had been written up in the United Nations Yearbook, the reference book The United Nations Today (formerly Basic Facts about the United Nations), the publication Sixty Ways the United Nations Makes a Difference, and the United Nations Chronicle Online.
In Geneva, the United Nations Information Service issued press releases summarizing meetings where human rights experts had discussed decolonization as part of the Human Rights Council’s country reviews, she said. The bi-weekly news briefing in Geneva addressed decolonization whenever it was in the news, and decolonization issues were included in guided tours of the Palais des Nations. The United Nations Regional Information Centre in Brussels addressed the issue in its speeches and lectures, and in response to public inquiries. Reports of the Secretary-General were regularly shared with various interested parties, including European Union institutions.
Ms. McKay said DPA’s annual working papers disseminated decolonization information gathered from information provided by administering Powers and supplemented by media reports, Internet sites and other sources. The information was collected and disseminated on request to Member States, representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories, schools, organizations and individuals. The material was distributed at the annual regional decolonization seminars. Information distributed in Saint Kitts and Nevis in May included three brochures prepared in collaboration with DPI, entitled The United Nations and Decolonization; The United Nations and Decolonization, Questions and Answers; and What the United Nations Can Do to Assist Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Having assumed responsibility for the decolonization website in 2004, DPA’s Decolonization Unit had begun exploring ways to make it more user-friendly. A new interactive website with more than 1,000 files of decolonization information, including reports, resolutions, working papers and press releases, would be launched soon. DPA would continue to expand its roster of experts, academics and organizations on decolonization, which were helpful in bringing new insights to the annual regional seminars. The Unit used that roster to widen its informal network of contacts. It continued to provide updated information to DPI’s Public Inquiries and Guided Tours Units in response to specific questions about decolonization matters, and to update the chapter on decolonization in the publication The United Nations Today.
By terms of the second text approved this morning, on the question of sending visiting and special missions to the Territories (document A/AC.109/2009/L.6), the Special Committee would have the General Assembly stress the need to dispatch periodic visiting missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories in order to facilitate full, speedy and effective implementation of the decolonization Declaration with respect to those Territories, in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions on decolonization and the plan of action of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. The Assembly would also call upon the administering Powers that had not yet done so to facilitate United Nations visiting missions to the Territories under their administration. It would request that the administering Powers cooperate fully with the Special Committee in exploring the possibility of visiting or special missions in order to further the Assembly’s decolonization mandate.
According to the text on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter (document A/AC.109/2009/L.4), the Assembly would request that the administering Powers concerned, in accordance with their Charter obligations, transmit or continue to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General statistical and other technical information relating to the economic, social and educational conditions in the Territories for which they were respectively responsible, as well as the fullest possible information on the Territories’ political and constitutional developments, within six months following the expiration of the administrative year in those Territories.
Also during today’s meeting, the Special Committee agreed to accede to requests for hearings relating to the questions of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, Western Sahara and Puerto Rico. Special Committee Vice-Chairperson Rupert Davies ( Sierra Leone) said 35 requests for hearing had been received to date.
The Special Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 9 June, to hear petitioners on the question of Gibraltar.
Regional Decolonization Seminar Addresses Pacific and Other Non-Self-Governing Territories outside Caribbean, United Nations Role in Providing Assistance
14 May 2009 General AssemblyGA/COL/3189 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
REGIONAL DECOLONIZATION SEMINAR ADDRESSES PACIFIC AND OTHER NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES OUTSIDE CARIBBEAN, UNITED NATIONS ROLE IN PROVIDING ASSISTANCE
(Received from a UN Information Officer.)
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS, 13 May ‑‑ During the second day of its work in Saint Kitts and Nevis today, the Regional Seminar on the Implementation of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010) took up the challenges and opportunities in the process of decolonization in the Non-Self-Governing Territories outside the Caribbean, and considered the role of the United Nations system in providing them with development assistance.
The three-day event is part of the work of the General Assembly’s Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which is also known as the Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization. Conducted within the framework of the Second Decade, the seminar provides an opportunity for representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories, administering Powers, United Nations Member States, regional and non-governmental organizations, and experts, to hold a frank and lively discussion on the issues of decolonization.
The first meeting today was devoted to the process of decolonization of the Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Pacific region and other Territories, including follow-up to the Pacific Regional Seminar, which was held in Indonesia last year. Following a comparative assessment of the constitutional exercise in American Samoa and United States Virgin Islands, the seminar considered ways of advancing the decolonization process in Saint Helena, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Western Sahara and Gibraltar.
As the participants considered the role of the United Nations in providing assistance to Non-Self-Governing Territories this afternoon, a representative of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) spoke about the Commission’s relationship with Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos and the United States Virgin Islands. Also presented to the seminar was a discussion paper of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which provided a summary of that Programme’s support to Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Caribbean.
Decolonization Challenges and Opportunities
At the opening of the meeting, its Chairman, R.M. MARTY M. NATALEGAWA of Indonesia drew the participants’ attention to written statements by Tokelau and its administering Power, New Zealand, which reflected the most recent developments in that Non-Self-Governing Territory.
Mr. Natalegawa said that Tokelau had gone through the process of two self-determination referenda, which were inconclusive. At the same time, New Zealand had extended its full and exemplary cooperation to the Special Committee. Former Chairman of the Committee, Ambassador Robert G. Aisi of Papua New Guinea, had participated in both referendums as an observer.
The first speaker of the day, TREGENZA A. ROACH of the University of the United States Virgin Islands made a presentation on the constitutional exercise in American Samoa and United States Virgin Islands, outlining the differences and similarities between the two. In the case of American Samoa, there was no Organic Act passed by the United States Congress, which formally set forth a system of government, although there was already a local constitution, which satisfied that purpose and provided a certain measure of self-government. The political leadership of American Samoa had spoken on the need for constitutional reform, and the public dialogue had already begun to connect the issues of status and constitutional reform.
The United States Virgin Islands, he said, was attempting to adopt a local constitution, with the aim of increasing local self-government. The federal law, which authorized the preparation of the constitution of the Virgin Islands, stressed that it was to be carried out in the framework of an unincorporated territory of the United States. Many in the Territory had argued that the status issue should be determined prior to the constitution’s adoption. However, locally adopted constitutions developed within the existing territorial status still left the peoples of the Territories “in limbo” ‑‑ neither self-governing, nor fully integrated with all the rights and privileges of citizens of the administering Power.
He went on to describe a public education project, which the University of the Virgin Islands had undertaken to inform residents about the Constitutional Convention and possible outcomes of its work. One of the project’s recommendations was that administering Powers, such as the United States, should provide financial support for endeavours to bring about additional self-government to the Territories.
In the case of the United States Virgin Islands, there was no widespread public interest in a local constitution, he continued. Even when the project was completed, only 21 per cent of the eligible electorate had voted in the elections for delegates to the Convention. In view of that experience, American Samoa must offer an intense programme of public information, if it was to be successful in gaining public appreciation, support and participation in the constitutional review. He also suggested that American Samoa might attempt some polling of its population to gauge interest and readiness to engage in constitutional and status-related exercises.
“In many instances we skirt the issue of status because it will require that we make difficult choices,” he added. Both the United States Virgin Islands and American Samoa had become increasingly reliant on financial assistance from the United States, and it seemed unlikely that there existed any substantial sentiment favouring political independence from the administering Power. Another aspect of the issue related to the equality of bargaining power with regard to the Territories, whose economies were intricately connected with that of the United States.
Several speakers in the ensuing debate emphasized the importance of education and awareness-raising efforts in the decolonization process. The people of Non-Self-Governing Territories needed to be aware of the fact that decolonization issues affected them and were connected to such aspects of everyday life as unemployment and economic hardship, one participant said. Talk about independence might seem abstract to the people on the ground, and it was important to find ways to connect that abstract concept to the problems they encountered on a daily basis.
The Special Committee could never assume that the public was sufficiently informed about the decolonization process, another participant ventured. That consideration should be seriously taken into account in its future work. It was important to reflect on the role of universities, the media and regional organizations in that regard.
Another participant said that the role of the United Nations and the Special Committee was to look after the rights of Non-Self-Governing Territories, serving as an umpire in the processes of internal constitutional reform. Should an administering Power reject the will of the people of a Non-Self-Governing Territory, the United Nations position should prevail. It was also important to educate people on their rights and establish clear criteria for determining the point at which independence was achieved.
An observer from Gibraltar, JOSEPH BOSSANO, said that under the terms of reference established for the Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, progress achieved in each Non-Self-Governing Territory should be assessed, including in Gibraltar. The population of the Territory considered itself a separate people with its own identity, under colonial rule and entitled to decolonization through the exercise of self-determination. The United Kingdom’s representative said the Territory had exercised self-determination in voting in the referendum on the modernization of the constitution. Should that be true, the Territory had been decolonized and had a new international status, and the reporting requirement under Article 73e of the Charter no longer existed.
He said Spain’s position was that the issue was a bilateral dispute over a piece of land, and the will of the people was irrelevant. The United Kingdom and Gibraltar rejected that view. There had been no bilateral negotiations between Spain and the United Kingdom, as the latter had promised that it would not resume such talks without Gibraltar’s prior consent, which was not forthcoming. Spain stated that sovereignty could not be discussed in the tripartite forum, because the matter was between Spain and the United Kingdom. On that point, he agreed with Spain, but for a different reason: the matter could not be discussed, because Spain had no say on Gibraltar’s sovereignty. Spain could not be allowed to interfere with the process of decolonization, which had to be completed in every single Non-Self-Governing Territory to eradicate colonialism.
TONY GREEN, Legislative Councillor from Saint Helena, said that a rapid decrease in the island’s population from over 6,000 to some 4,000 was central to its current predicament. There was no industry to speak of, and there were no natural resources. The Territory’s key “export” was its people, which were creating a very serious problem. With many young and middle-aged people leaving, a high percentage of the population was elderly, and the Territory thus had insufficient human resources.
“We do not have a sovereignty issue with Britain,” he said, adding that Saint Helena did not wish to be decolonized in the sense that it neither could have, nor wanted, independence. Saint Helena sought the support of the Special Committee to urge the United Kingdom to assist the island in two particular areas: the people of the Territory wished to have a new partnership with Britain, believing strongly that they should not be categorized as a British Overseas Territory and should rather be considered as a part of that country; and Britain should immediately fulfil its repeated promises to build an airport on the island, which was needed to generate the tourism industry and support the island’s economy. It was also necessary to clarify the relationship between Saint Helena and its two dependencies, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha.
An examination of the new relationship with Britain a few years ago by the Citizenship Committee of Saint Helena had indicated that the relationship that might best serve Saint Helena’s interest was similar to that enjoyed by Saint Pierre et Miquelon. However, any preferred option would have to emerge from a process of full consultation.
AHMED BOUKHARI, Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Polisario Front), outlined the history of Western Sahara’s quest for independence as the last African colonial case on the Special Committee’s agenda, saying that in the early 1970s, Morocco had supported the consensus on the right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination. Following the Madrid Accords with Spain of 1975, Morocco invaded the Territory, and had continued to occupy it since, in violation of numerous United Nations resolutions.
Turning to the current situation, he said that the Frente Polisario had never reneged on its commitments vis-à-vis the Security Council since the approval of the settlement plan in 1991. Of late, it had given its support to the appointment of Christopher Ross as the Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy. The Frente Polisario did not prejudge the decision to which the Saharawi people were legitimately entitled with regard to their future, by choosing between being an independent nation and a territory integrated into Morocco. Nevertheless, its unwavering position was that the Saharawi people must be consulted about their future in a free and transparent manner, and the options of independence, integration or free association must be respected.
The two parties should negotiate in good faith and without preconditions a political solution that must ensure the right to self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, as requested by the Security Council and General Assembly, he said. That approach was reflected in the proposal submitted by the Frente Polisario to the Security Council in April 2007.
Stressing the need to ensure respect for human rights, without exceptions, he added that Western Sahara was a Territory under a decolonization process that had been brutally interrupted by Morocco’s invasion and illegal occupation. He also emphasized his people’s right to sovereignty over the natural resources of the Territory. Taking into account relevant resolutions and principles of international law, any activity or exploitation, commercialization and trade affecting those natural resources by Morocco was illegal.
CINTHIA ECHAVARRIA ( Argentina) said that the distinctive feature of the question of the Malvinas Islands related to the fact that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples had been adopted in defence of peoples subjected to or subjugated by a colonial Power. In the Malvinas case, there was, indeed, a colonial Power, the United Kingdom, but there was no subjugated population. That population had been expelled at the time of the invasion in 1833 and subsequently replaced by British citizens.
She said the Question of the Malvinas Islands related to a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom. It was clear that there was no third party to that dispute. The United Kingdom systematically refused to sit down with Argentina at the negotiating table, arguing that it would not do so until the inhabitants of the Territory so “wished”. It thus eluded compliance with the international community’s mandate to discuss sovereignty with Argentina by seeking to introduce the inhabitants it had transplanted on the Islands as a party to a discussion.
Putting an end to the colonial situation resulting from the British occupation of the Malvinas, South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands by blunt application of the principle of self-determination would result in a paradox, for it would actually crystallize a colonial situation derived from the act of usurpation by force, thus disrupting the territorial integrity of Argentina, she continued. Moreover, it would run contrary to the call of the United Nations for Argentina and the United Kingdom to sit down and discuss sovereignty. Her country was willing to resume negotiations with the United Kingdom, with a view to finding a solution to the sovereignty dispute, as requested by the United Nations.
ALBERTO VIRELLA (Spain) said that the situation of Gibraltar related to Spain’s national unity and territorial integrity, and the General Assembly, by its resolution 1514 (XV), had pointed out that there should be compatibility between the principle of self-determination of peoples and the principle of territorial integrity of States. Furthermore, the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, accepted both by the United Kingdom and Spain, had established the future of Gibraltar, leaving only two options for the Territory: to remain British or to return to Spain. That meant that Spain’s consent was required for any change in Gibraltar’s international status. He also addressed the question of the Isthmus, not ceded to the United Kingdom under the Utrecht Treaty, or ever since.
He recalled that the United Nations mandate concerning Gibraltar invited the United Kingdom and Spain to find a negotiated solution, taking into account the interests of the population of the colony. His Government was willing to resume the bilateral talks, known as the Brussels Process, but the United Kingdom had consistently ignored Spain’s appeals to resume conversations.
The assertions that the new constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom constituted a “modern, non-colonial relationship which results in Gibraltar no longer being a colony” opposed fundamental United Nations principles concerning decolonization. Gibraltar’s new Constitutional Order, granted by the United Kingdom in 2006, did not entail any change in the colony’s international status, which remained a Non-Self-Governing Territory. “Colonialism by consent” did not mean that the resulting political arrangements were any less colonial. Moreover, the new constitutional text did not affect the legal validity of the Treaty of Utrecht. His Government was also opposed to any attempt to remove Gibraltar from the United Nations list of “territories that are undergoing the decolonization process”. That decision could only be taken by the General Assembly.
The Forum for Dialogue on Gibraltar did not replace the Brussels Process, as was clearly expressed in the statement made jointly by the Governments of the United Kingdom, Spain and Gibraltar on 16 December 2004, he said. As for the latest developments in the Forum, the agreements reached were being implemented so as to contribute to creating favourable conditions that would allow for a resolution of the questions of sovereignty separately, at an appropriate time, in the Brussels Process. New areas of work included maritime communications; environmental cooperation; judicial, customs and police cooperation; financial services and taxation; visas; and education. Those agreements aimed at benefiting the people of Gibraltar and the surrounding region and, therefore, his Government was willing to continue its efforts for one more year.
Following a lengthy exchange on procedural issues, KHADDAD EL MOUSSAOUI ( Morocco) presented a statement in Spanish, with the English translation distributed to the participants. The presentation elaborated on the history on the question and stated that by 2000, the Secretary-General had come to the conclusion that after nine years of efforts, it was not possible to apply entirely the main provisions of the 1991 settlement plan, except for the ceasefire, because of the difference of view between the parties regarding the meaning given to the main provisions of the plan. The Security Council and the Secretary-General had recommended searching for a “third way”, with no winner and no loser, to get out of the deadlock. Morocco had proposed a status of large autonomy, which would allow the Saharawis to manage their own political and economic affairs within the sovereignty, the national unity and territorial integrity of Morocco.
He noted that the autonomy proposal had been elaborated within the framework of the Royal Advisory Council for Saharan Affairs (CORCAS), and was considered serious and credible by a large majority of countries, the Secretary-General and the Security Council. The Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy, Peter Van Walsum, in his report dated 18 March 2008, had stated that Western Saharan independence was not a realistic solution. Under the autonomy proposal, Morocco guaranteed to all the Saharawis, whether outside or inside the Territory, their full rights without discrimination or exclusion. The status of autonomy resulting from negotiations would be submitted for another consultation to concerned populations, through a referendum. Morocco was asking the other parties to take the opportunity to start a new chapter in the history of the region.
He added that the Polisario Front was not the sole representative of the Saharawis. Moreover, the Polisario and Algeria should raise the blockade to which they had submitted the Saharawis in the Tindouf camps in the south of Algeria. “We do not have the right to let a new generation of desperate persons grow up in this region, in the south of Algeria, in the north of Mauritania and in the north of Mali,” he said. The consequences were disastrous and dangerous: arms and drugs trafficking; trafficking in human beings; and creation of home for terrorists, as had been the case recently in the south of Algeria, where one Al-Qaida entity had been constituted.
Regarding the role of Algeria, he said that because of geopolitical reasons related to the cold war, that country had always been against the achievement of the territorial integrity by Morocco, he said. Since 1976, Algeria had sponsored the creation of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic on the Algerian territory. It had also tried to mobilize certain countries to recognize that false entity, which did not have any attribute of a sovereign State. The ensuing war had not brought positive results for the Saharawi people, Algeria, Morocco, or the international community.
SOFIANE BERRAH ( Algeria) said that his country remained concerned that Western Sahara was still an issue of incomplete decolonization, and its people had not yet been allowed to exercise their basic democratic right to decide their own future. After more than 100 resolutions and an opinion of the International Court of Justice, the Saharawi people had never been allowed to exercise their right to self-determination through a referendum. In rejecting it, Morocco, the occupying Power, had not even attempted to explain why that democratic solution was not viable.
He also expressed concern regarding ongoing human rights violations in Western Sahara. Since last year, two reports by an ad hoc European Parliament field team and Human Rights Watch had strongly recommended the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to assess the human rights situation on the ground. Morocco, with the help of powerful members of the Security Council, had persisted in rejecting that proposal.
On the negotiation process between Morocco and the Polisario Front, he said that the Security Council had consistently reiterated its call to both parties to enter into negotiations without preconditions and in good faith, but Morocco had repeatedly stated that it would not negotiate anything other than autonomy, on the false assumption that Western Sahara was already part of the territory of Morocco. The United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the African Union and a broad consensus within the international community, even among Morocco’s closest friends and allies, had long rejected that allegation.
The way forward for the last African colony lay with the United Nations, he said. The statement of the sole legitimate representative of the people of Western Sahara at the seminar carried a significant message that all that Western Sahara people needed was to have an opportunity to express their will in a free and fair referendum.
He also commented upon Morocco’s allegations that Algeria had created the Polisario Front, saying that Polisario had grown from the earlier anti-colonial struggle that had long pre-dated the establishment of the independent Algerian State. The representative of Morocco had attempted to portray Algeria “as the bad guy”, but his country had not even gotten seriously involved in the issue until after the Moroccan invasion of Western Sahara in 1975. No country in the world, not even Morocco’s allies, recognized its sovereignty over Sahara, which was still, de jure, under Spanish control. The transfer of power to Morocco under the Madrid Agreement had no legal validity and, indeed, the United Nations had never recognized it. As for the claim that the Polisario-administered refugee camps in Algeria were potential recruiting grounds for Al-Qaida, the Polisario Front was a secular nationalist organization and its people were characterized by a liberal interpretation of Islam. Alienating the Polisario Front was not a recipe for creating trust and mutual respect, which were needed to continue the negotiation process under United Nations auspices.
Role of United Nations System
As the seminar turned to the role of the United Nations system in providing developmental assistance to Non-Self-Governing Territories, RONALD WILLIAMS, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), spoke about the active relationship of Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos and the United States Virgin Islands with the Commission’s subregional headquarters for the Caribbean. Those Territories regularly participated in ECLAC-sponsored activities in their capacity as Associate Members of the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee. They had also been afforded the opportunity to participate in the global forums of the United Nations system and the work of the Economic and Social Council.
In an attempt to address the concerns of those Territories in the context of the rapid pace of globalization, the subregional headquarters had recently prepared several studies, which provided analysis on the key issues confronting the Territories, he continued. It had also held meetings for Associate Member countries. Several Non-Self-Governing Territories had benefited from the technical services of ECLAC’s disaster assessment team, following a series of recent hurricanes and tropical storms. For example, at the request of the Cayman Islands, technical support had been provided in the conduct of a macro socio-economic assessment of the damage and losses caused by Hurricane Paloma this year.
MICHAEL M. STREITZ, Senior Political Affairs Officer, Decolonization Unit, United Nations Department of Political Affairs, presented the UNDP discussion paper, which provided a summary of that Programme’s support to Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Caribbean. UNDP’s subregional office in Barbados and Jamaica provided assistance to several Caribbean Non-Self-Governing Territories.
UNDP’s main areas of support related to technical assistance and policy advice in the areas of macroeconomic, financial and fiscal management, economic statistics, disaster mitigation and resettlement and recovery programmes, as well as capacity-building and environmental sustainability, he noted. The Programme also provided non-project support to several other initiatives in the Non-Self-Governing Territories, often in collaboration with Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and as part of integrated regional initiatives. For example, in Montserrat, UNDP had supported efforts in poverty reduction and social sector development, including in the establishment of a child health database and in monitoring progress on achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Following the volcanic eruptions in the 1990s, disaster recovery had been provided to Montserrat. Support was also provided in the areas of capacity-building for disaster risk reduction, early warning and climate change.
In the British Virgin Islands, he said support was given through subregional and regional projects, in such areas as capacity development in statistics, poverty reduction and monitoring of the Millennium Development Goals. Through OECS, and with additional funding from the Government of the British Virgin Islands, UNDP had been successfully implementing a community risk reduction initiative to reduce the danger from landslides. Anguilla had benefited mainly through regional initiatives, with UNDP support, in such areas as capacity-building, data collection and analysis. UNDP had also provided Anguilla with assistance in financial sector supervision and risk management. Last August, UNDP Jamaica had fielded two missions to the Turks and Caicos Islands, including a team to support immediate relief after Hurricane Ike.
The speaker added that information on the work of the broader United Nations system vis-à-vis the Non-Self-Governing Territories was published annually in a report submitted to the Economic and Social Council. He also drew attention to the brochure entitled “What the United Nations Can Do to Assist Non-Self-Governing Territories”. He also referred to UNDP’s work in the Pacific region, in particular in Tokelau.
In the discussion that followed the presentations, speakers wanted to know more about the impact of the Organization’s cooperation projects and assistance programmes in various Non-Self-Governing Territories. They also insisted on the need to disseminate information regarding the parameters for the Territories’ participation in United Nations bodies, in particular ECLAC. A participant suggested that the Special Committee should explore ways of encouraging UNDP and other agencies to participate in its seminars.
There was a scope and capacity for Non-Self-Governing Territories to join various international organizations and specialized agencies as observers and associate members, another speaker said, stressing the importance of providing information on the available options to those involved. In particular, he emphasized the role of ECLAC, which not only provided assistance to countries and initiated capacity-building projects, but also facilitated their access to the wider United Nations system. Continued direct assistance from such organizations as UNDP was said to be of great importance.
A representative of the World Health Organization (WHO)/Pan-American Health Organization spoke about efforts to improve the health infrastructure and fight diseases in the Caribbean, including in the Non-Self-Governing Territories. She also outlined the pandemic preparedness activities in the region.
The Chief Minister of Montserrat expressed gratitude to UNDP for its assistance to the Territory after the volcanic eruptions and suggested that the Programme could also provide advice on constitutional reform to the Non-Self-Governing Territories. Also needed was a full programme of education in relation to decolonization and financing missions from countries other than the administering Powers to fill the gaps.
Also raised in the discussion was the need to provide assistance to non-governmental organizations active in the area of decolonization, to strengthen capacity-building programmes for the Non-Self-Governing Territories and to involve women in the decolonization process.
General Assembly Adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples; ‘Major Step Forward’ towards Human Rights for All, Says President
Vote: 143 – 4 (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States) – 11; Also Adopts Texts on South Atlantic Zone of Peace, Preventing Armed Conflict
The General Assembly today overwhelmingly backed protections for the human rights of indigenous peoples, adopting a landmark declaration that brought to an end nearly 25 years of contentious negotiations over the rights of native people to protect their lands and resources, and to maintain their unique cultures and traditions.
By a vote of 143 in favour to 4 against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States), with 11 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which sets out the individual and collective rights of the world’s 370 million native peoples, calls for the maintenance and strengthening of their cultural identities, and emphasizes their right to pursue development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.
A non-binding text, the Declaration states that native peoples have the right “to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties” concluded with States or their successors. It also prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them.
The Human Rights Council adopted the Declaration in June 2006, over the objections of some Member States with sizeable indigenous populations. The Assembly deferred consideration of the text late last year at the behest of African countries, which raised objections about language on self-determination and the definition of “indigenous” people.
“The importance of this document for indigenous peoples and, more broadly, for the human rights agenda, cannot be underestimated,” said General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa in a statement delivered by Assembly Vice-President, Aminu Bashir Wali of Nigeria.
She warned that, even with the progress achieved by events such as the 1995 first United Nations International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples and the beginning of the Second International Decade last year, native peoples still faced marginalisation, extreme poverty and other human rights violations. They were often dragged into conflicts and land disputes that threatened their way of life and very survival; and, suffered from a lack of access to health care and education.
“I am acutely aware that the Declaration is the product of over two decades of negotiations,” she said, and stressed that, by adopting the Declaration, the Assembly was also taking another major step forward towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. It was also actively demonstrating the General Assembly’s important role in setting international standards.
Countries voting against the Declaration said they could not support it because of concerns over provisions on self-determination, land and resources rights and, among others, language giving indigenous peoples a right of veto over national legislation and State management of resources.
Speaking in explanation of vote before the text was adopted, Canada's representative said that, unfortunately, the provisions in the Declaration on lands, territories and resources were overly broad, unclear, and capable of a wide variety of interpretations, discounting the need to recognize a range of rights over land and possibly putting into question matters that have been settled by treaty.
The representative of the United States said that it was disappointing that the Human Rights Council had not responded to his country’s calls, in partnership with Council members, for States to undertake further work to generate a consensus text. The Declaration had been adopted by the Council in a splintered vote “…and risked endless conflicting interpretations and debate about its application, as already evidenced by the numerous complex interpretive statements issued by States at its adoption at the Human Rights Council, and the United States could not lend its support to such a text”.
Australia’s representative said his Government had long expressed its dissatisfaction with the references to self-determination in the text. Self-determination applied to situations of decolonization and the break-up of States into smaller states with clearly defined population groups. It also applied where a particular group with a defined territory was disenfranchised and was denied political or civil rights. Australia supported and encouraged the full engagement of indigenous peoples in the democratic decision-making process, but did not support a concept that could be construed as encouraging action that would impair, even in part, the territorial and political integrity of a State with a system of democratic representative Government.
In an informal meeting following adoption of the text, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, said: “This day will forever be etched in our memories as a significant gain in our peoples’ long struggle for our rights as distinct peoples and cultures.” While she respected the interpretive statements made by Member States, indigenous people believed the significance and implications of the Declaration should not be minimized in any way. That would amount to discrimination. “For us, the correct way to interpret the Declaration is to read it in its entirety or in a holistic manner and to relate it with existing international law,” she said.
She said that effective implementation of the Declaration would test the commitment of States and the whole international community to protect, respect and fulfil indigenous peoples’ collective and individual human rights. “I call on Governments, the UN system, indigenous peoples and civil society at large to rise to the historic task before us and make the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a living document for the common future of humanity,” she concluded.
Les Malezer, Chairperson of the Global Indigenous Caucus, said that, with the adoption of the Declaration, the United Nations and indigenous people had found common ground. The text did not represent the sole viewpoint of the United Nations, nor did it represent the viewpoint of all the world’s indigenous people. It was based on mutual respect. It contained no new provisions of human rights. It was based on rights that had been approved by the United Nations system but which had somehow, over the years, been denied to indigenous peoples. It was a framework for States to protect and promote the rights of indigenous people without exclusion or discrimination...
Since 1945, the United Nations have touched the lives of billions of people, facilitating momentous change in economic and social development worldwide.
In this series, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs highlights 70 years of development in 70 seconds.
In this episode, we look at the way the United Nations have worked together with the world's indigenous populations, giving them access to a platform to discuss their unique concerns, protect their rights and preserve their ways of life.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) is appalled by the death of Nicaraguan parliamentarian and Indigenous leader Brooklyn Rivera Bryan while in State custody.
The IPU extends its deepest condolences to his family, the Miskito people and all those who stood with him in the defence of Indigenous rights and democratic values.
The IPU has actively engaged in Mr. Rivera’s case since his enforced disappearance on 29 September 2023. Through its Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians, the IPU has repeatedly called on the Nicaraguan authorities to disclose his whereabouts, ensure his safety, investigate his disappearance and cooperate with international efforts to establish the truth.
For more than two and a half years, Mr. Rivera’s family, colleagues and the international community have been denied information about his fate. The IPU deeply regrets that its repeated appeals and efforts to pursue constructive dialogue with the authorities went unanswered.
The circumstances surrounding Mr. Rivera’s death must now be the subject of a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation capable of establishing the full truth, ensuring accountability for all those responsible, and providing justice and reparation to his family.
The death of a parliamentarian in State custody is a matter of the utmost gravity. The IPU reiterates that attacks, reprisals and violations committed against parliamentarians strike at the very foundations of democratic representation and the rule of law. It calls on the Nicaraguan authorities to fully comply with their obligations under international human rights law and to cooperate without delay with all international and regional mechanisms seeking to establish the facts of this case.
"KhoiKhoiBushman Indigenous People of South Africa put on record the attempt to ERASE ORIGINAL Southern Africa Rock Art History in Partnership with Universities and the Rupert Foundation.. We do not acknowledge this "New Rock Art" as the original Linton Panel discovered in 1918."
KhoiKhoiBushman Indgenous People of South Africa, as official recognnized by the United Nations in 2007does not include Bantu Xhosa West African Settlers, who are the Black Majority in South Africa. We REJECT this claim by Bantu Xhosa's in its entirety.
The exhibition titled ǃke e꞉ ǀxarra ǁke [‘People who are different’, ‘come together’], celebrates the rock art of the San people and is on display now at the Or
The Rock Art Research Institute (RARI), in collaboration with the Origins Centre at Wits University, launched an exhibition of a new ultra-high-resolution facsimile of the exceptional San rock art panel. The panel contains the original painted image chosen for the national coat of arms.
The exhibition, titled ǃke e꞉ ǀxarra ǁke , which translates to ‘people who are different’, ‘ come together’, celebrates the rock art of the San people, the first inhabitants of southern Africa. The exhibition explores the tales of the San people’s way of life, from religion and beliefs, to the way they hunted or experienced weather. It is an indigenous archive of San tradition.
“The Rock Art Research Institute here at Wits is the first of its kind in the world. From the 1980s, its scholars, led by Professor David Lewis-Williams, joined the academic world to bring indigenous history and images to life,” said Professor Zeblon Vilakazi, Wits Vice-Chancellor and Principal. He added that this archive provided an almost inexhaustible resource for the arts.
It was in the year 2000 that former President Thabo Mbeki approached RARI in search of an indigenous art image for the coat of arms of the new South Africa. Scholars referred Mbeki to the famous Linton panel, a large slab of rock measuring 2m by .8m and recovered from a rock shelter on a farm named Linton in 1918. The panel came to prominence after a male figure from the panel became the figure we see today in the national coat of arms.
Wits Emeritus Professor and rock art specialist David Lewis-Williams was invited to translate the ancient San language for the national motto. He chose the |Xam words “ǃke e꞉ ǀxarra ǁke” from the phrases “people who are different” and “come together”.
“One of the things we constantly come across is the genocide of the Khoi San people in the 18th and 19th centuries. So it is wonderful to have their language displayed in our coat of arms,” said Lewis-Williams.
The exhibition also showcases new artwork by |Xam descendant artists at the Bushman Heritage Museum in Nieu-Bethesda. Their work forms part of the Origins Centre exhibition, in a modern |Xam take on the imagery in the national coat of arms.
In addition to the Origins Centre exhibition, rock art specialist Jeremy Hollmann released his comprehensively revised second edition book, titled Custom and Beliefs of the /Xam, published by Wits University Press as part of its centenary celebrations in 2022. Hollmann has worked extensively with the Bleek and Lloyd Collection over the past 20 years, using the |Xam testimony as an inspiration and source for exploring the meanings of southern African rock art.
“I spent about 69 hours in my chair writing this edition. For roughly two years, this book has been part of our household. The first edition came out in 2004 and I often thought that I am now older and wiser, and I feel that I was able to bring more to the material for this new edition,” said Hollmann.
Based on the articles published in the 1930s by Dorothea Bleek in the journal Bantu Studies, Hollman’s revised and expanded edition brings together a wide range of |Xam beliefs and key narratives, as told to Bleek and Lloyd by |Xam teachers.
Rural violence is a huge problem in South Africa that deserves a strong response. But white people are not the only casualties.
American president Donald Trump has issued an executive order to withdraw aid from South Africa. He was reacting to what he has called the South African government’s plan to “seize ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation”. Afrikaners are an ethnic and linguistic community of white South Africans whose home language is Afrikaans.
Trump’s action, amplified by provocative comments from billionaire Elon Musk, has reignited debate about the concept of “white victimhood”. We asked Nicky Falkof, who has researched the idea of white victimhood, for her insights.
What does ‘white victimhood’ mean?
White victimhood refers to a powerful set of beliefs that treats white people as special and different, but also as uniquely at risk. Within this narrative white people see themselves, and are sometimes seen by others, as extraordinary victims, whose exposure to violence or vulnerability is more concerning and important than anyone else’s.
White victimhood is usually speculative. It relates not to actual events that have happened, but to white people’s feelings of being threatened or unsafe. Entire political agendas develop around the idea that white people must be protected because they face exceptional threats, which are not being taken seriously by a contemporary world order that fails to value whiteness.
This is by no means particular to South Africa; we see it wherever whiteness is predominant. Indeed, ideas about white victimhood play a significant role in the popularity of Trump, whose call to “make America great again” harks back to an idealised past where white people (particularly men) could easily dominate the nation, the workplace and the home.
The South African case is important because it plays a central role in global white supremacist claims. These mythologies claim that white South Africans, specifically Afrikaners, are the canary in the coalmine: that the alleged oppression they are facing is a blueprint for what will happen to all white people if they don’t “fight back”.
What is its history?
We can trace this idea back to the start of the colonial project. In 1660 Dutch East India Company administrator Jan van Riebeeck planted a hedge of bitter almond shrubs to separate his trading station from the rest of South Africa’s Cape. This hedge was part of a defensive barrier intended to keep indigenous people out of the Dutch trading post, which had been built on top of ancient Khoikhoi grazing routes.
On a practical level, van Riebeeck’s hedge was meant to shield Dutch settlers and livestock from Khoikhoi raiders. On a philosophical level, the hedge situated the invaders as the “real” victims, who desperately needed protection from the violence and wildness of Africa. The bitter almond hedge is still seen as an enduring symbol of white supremacy in the country.
This early paranoia and securitisation has had a significant effect on white South African culture and anxiety. White people who can afford to do so barricade themselves in gated communities and boomed-off suburban streets, behind high walls topped with razor wire, on the assumption that they are the primary victims of South Africa’s crime rate.
In what ways has victimhood been used over the centuries or decades?
Ideas about white victimhood have played a role in many of South Africa’s most influential social formations.
The 1930s saw a major panic around “poor whites”, which led to commissions of inquiry, upliftment programmes and other attempts at social engineering. The people and institutions behind these initiatives weren’t concerned about poverty in South Africa in general, even though it was becoming more of a problem as the population urbanised. Their only interest was in poverty among white people, drawing on the assumption that it’s wrong or abnormal for white people to be poor, and that this needed to be urgently remedied.
These moves were not simply about philanthropy and offering better life chances to poor people; they were about protecting the boundaries of whiteness. Poor whites were seen as a threat to the establishment because they proved that whiteness wasn’t inherently superior.
More recently, the victimhood narrative has been a central part of the panic around farm murders and claims of “white genocide”, an old idea that has been popularised and spread online.
Rural violence is a huge problem in South Africa that deserves a strong response. But white people are far from its only casualties. Indeed, violent crime affects pretty much everyone in South Africa. When the deaths of white people are explained as part of a targeted genocide undertaken on the basis of race, the message is that they matter more than the deaths of everyone else.
Again, this suggests a kind of naturalisation of violence and harm. When terrible things happen to other people they simply happen and are not remarked on. It’s only when white people are affected that they become a pressing issue.
Has it helped white South Africans? Has it been effective as a mobilising tool?
White victimhood, like the racial anxiety it is part of, is not good for white people. It doesn’t keep them safer or help them to live better lives.
That said, it’s been quite effective as a mobilising tool. The apartheid-era National Party was skilled at using white fear for political gain. Its communications constantly played on white fears of the swart gevaar, the “black danger”, which encapsulated the powerful belief that whites were more at risk from black people than vice versa, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, contemporary organisations like the Afrikaner “minority rights” pressure group AfriForum and the Afrikaans trade union Solidarity activate and manipulate white people’s senses of extraordinary victimhood. This drives them further into a defensive position, where everything from farm murders and road name changes to the National Health Insurance bill is designed to attack them personally.
White support for these kinds of organisations and the political positions they espouse, whether overtly or covertly, is at least in part driven by the effective manipulation of white victimhood.
How effective is it still?
It remains disturbingly powerful. The architecture of white supremacy depends on the idea that white people are extraordinary victims. This is the driving notion beneath the great replacement theory, a far-right conspiracy theory claiming that Jews and non-white foreigners are plotting to “replace” whites. It also underpins violent reactions to the global migration crisis and the rise of populism in the north.
I don’t think it’s going too far to say that whiteness as a social construction is intrinsically tied to victimhood. The idea that whiteness actually makes people more rather than less vulnerable is likely to remain a central part of white people’s collective psychic imaginary for some time.
Approving Work Programme, Fourth Committee Agrees to Consider Decolonization, University of Peace, Outer Space, Atomic Radiation Items
1 October 2009 General AssemblyGA/SPD/421 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Approving Work Programme, Fourth Committee Agrees to Consider Decolonization,
University of Peace, Outer Space, Atomic Radiation Items
In a brief organizational meeting today, the Fourth Committee (Special, Political and Decolonization) approved its work programme for the current session, during which it planned to consider more than a dozen topics, ranging from the peaceful uses of outer space to the University of Peace and the decolonization of the remaining non-self-governing territories.
Meeting for the first time since the start of the General Assembly’s sixty-fourth session, the Committee elected Vice-Chairperson Heidi Schroderus-Fox(Finland). Following that action, Chairperson Nassir Abdulaziz Nassir (Qatar) introduced the other Vice-Chairs, Reniery Valladares (Honduras)and Ridas Petkus (Lithuania), as well as the Committee’s Rapporteur Khalid Ali (Sudan).
According to its work programme (document A/C.4/64/L.1),the Committee would consider a cluster of items relating to decolonization, among them, implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, during its general debate from 5 to 9 October.
Further in that regard, an aide-mémoire and an addendum (documents 01/09 and 01/09/Add.1), containing 96 requests for hearings related to the questions of Gibraltar, Guam, New Caledonia, Western Sahara and the United States Virgin Islands, were issued. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar and the President of the Government of New Caledonia would make statements, the Chairperson announced.
The Committee would devote one meeting to the University of Peace, on 12 October. Three meetings would be devoted to considering peaceful uses of outer space, from 20 to 22 October. The Committee also agreed, as was its tradition, to establish a working group on outer space, to be chaired this year by Colombia.
During three meetings on 13, 14 and 15 October, the Committee would consider questions relating to information. Delegations would also consider the effects of atomic radiation on 16 October, and would hold a comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations, from 23 to 28 October. On 29 and 30 October, they would consider assistance in mine action.
In addition, the Committee would consider the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) from 2 to 4 November. From 6 to 10 November, it would take up the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and other Arabs of the Occupied Territories.
Panels and interactive dialogues were scheduled under items on the University for Peace, outer space, questions relating to information, peacekeeping and assistance in mine action, as well as UNRWA.
The Committee expected to complete its work by Wednesday, 11 November, once action had been taken on all draft resolutions submitted under the last two agenda items related to the Middle East.
The Fourth Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Monday, 5 October, to begin its consideration of the issues relating to the implementation of the decolonization Declaration.
Special Committee on Decolonization Approves Text Reaffirming Principle of Self-Determination as Fundamental Human Right
19 June 2009 General AssemblyGA/COL/3197 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on
Decolonization
10th Meeting (AM)
special committee on decolonization approves text reaffirming principle of self-determination as fundamental human right
Members Conclude Consideration of Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Question
The Special Committee on Decolonization approved a two-part draft resolution today by which the General Assembly would reaffirm that there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was a fundamental human right.
Acting without a vote, the Special Committee approved the “omnibus” text on 11 Non-Self-Governing Territories, recommending that the Assembly also reaffirm the inalienable rights of their peoples to self-determination, in conformity with the United Nations Charter and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
By part A of the text, the Assembly would reaffirm also that it was ultimately for the peoples of the Territories to determine freely their future political status in accordance with the Charter, the Declaration and the relevant resolutions. It would reiterate its long-standing call for the administering Powers, in cooperation with the territorial governments and appropriate United Nations bodies, to develop education programmes to foster awareness of their right to self-determination in conformity with the legitimate political status options.
The text ‑‑ titled “Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands” ‑‑ would have the Assembly stress the importance of the Special Committee being apprised of the views and wishes of the peoples of those Territories and enhancing its understanding of their conditions, including the nature and scope of the existing political and constitutional arrangements between them and their respective administering Powers.
Further by the text, the Assembly would stress the importance of the various constitutional exercises in the respective Territories administered by the United Kingdom and the United States, and led by the territorial governments, designed to address internal constitutional structures within the present territorial arrangements. It would, by further terms, request the administering Powers to continue to transmit regularly to the United Nations Secretary-General information called for under Article 73 e of the United Nations Charter. It would also call upon the administering Powers to participate in the work of the Special Committee in order to implement the provisions of Article 73 eand the Declaration.
With an eye on the ongoing global economic turmoil, the Assembly would reaffirm the responsibility of the administering Powers to promote the economic and social development of the Territories and help soften the impact of the crisis, while consulting with the respective territorial governments with the aim of strengthening and diversifying their respective economies.
On environmental issues, the Special Committee would recommend that the Assembly request the Territories and the administering Powers to protect and conserve the environment of the Territories against any degradation. It would also request specialized agencies to continue monitoring environmental conditions in the Territories and provide assistance, in accordance with their prevailing rules of procedure.
Part B of the text deals with each of the 11 Non-Self-Governing Territories. On American Samoa, the Assembly would stress the importance of the invitations previously extended to the Special Committee by the Governor to send a visiting mission, and call upon the administering Power to facilitate such a mission if the territorial government so desired.
Regarding Anguilla, the Assembly would welcome the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission’s report of 2006, including the holding of a public forum in April 2008 to address constitutional reform issues and the subsequent agreement to seek full internal self-government, short of political independence. It would request the administering Power to assist the Territory in its current efforts with regard to advancing the internal constitutional review exercise, if requested.
In the case of Bermuda, the Special Committee recommended that the Assembly stress the importance of the 2005 report of the Bermuda Independence Commission, which provided a thorough examination of the facts surrounding independence. It would express regret that the plans for public meetings and the presentation of a Green Paper to the House of Assembly followed by a White Paper outlining the policy proposals for an independent Bermuda had so far not materialized.
On the British Virgin Islands, the Assembly would welcome the Territory’s new constitution, which took effect in June 2007, and note the continued need expressed by the territorial government for minor constitutional amendments in the years to come. It would also welcome the Territory’s efforts to focus its economic base more on local ownership and professional industries other than financial services.
Concerning the Cayman Islands, the Assembly would welcome the finalization of a new draft constitution in February 2009 and its subsequent acceptance by referendum in May. It would also welcome the efforts of the territorial government to address cost-of-living issues in various economic sectors, and welcome also the Territory’s participation as a new associate member of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).
On Guam, the Assembly would request the administering Power to take into consideration the expressed will of the Chamorro people as supported by Guam voters in the referendum of 1987. It would request the administering Power to continue to transfer land to the original landowners of the Territory, and continue to recognize and respect their political rights, culture and ethnic identity as Chamorro people of Guam, while taking all measures necessary to address the concerns of the territorial government with regard to immigration.
The Assembly would, in respect of Pitcairn, request the administering Power to continue its assistance for the improvement of the population’s economic, social, educational and other conditions, and to continue its discussions with the territorial government on how best to support economic security in Pitcairn.
Regarding Saint Helena, the Assembly would request the administering Power and relevant international organizations to continue to support the territorial government’s efforts to address socio-economic challenges, including unemployment and limited transport and communications infrastructure.
Concerning the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Assembly would recall the Constitution of the Territory, which took effect in 2006, and note the territorial government’s view that that there remained scope for a degree of delegation of the Governor’s power to the Territory so as to secure greater autonomy. It would note with concern the ongoing situation and also the need to restore good governance and sound financial management. The Assembly would welcome the territorial government’s continuing efforts to address the need for enhanced social cohesion.
With regard to the United States Virgin Islands, the Assembly would request the administering Power to facilitate the process of approval for the territorial draft constitution in the United States Congress, once agreed upon by the territorial government. It would also 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.
In other business, the Special Committee concluded its consideration of the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), following its approval yesterday of a draft resolution recommending that the Assembly call for direct negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom over that Non-Self-Governing Territory. That text, approved without a vote, acknowledged the “special and particular colonial situation”, which differed from others because of a sovereignty dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom.
In today’s debate, some speakers again questioned the application of the self-determination principle to that situation. The representative of Uruguay noted that, according to General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), the right to self–determination had its limits.
Others speaking today were the representatives of Mali, Brazil, Peru, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Grenada and Saint Lucia.
The Special Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 22 June, to take up the report of the Caribbean Regional Seminar.
Background
The Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples met this morning to continue its consideration of the question of the Falklands Islands (Malvinas).
Known informally as the Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization, it was also expected to take action on an “omnibus” 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 United States Virgin Islands”.
Statements
DONATUS KEITH ST. AIMEE ( Saint Lucia) noted that the issue had been before the Special Committee for many years and it was caught “between a rock and a hard place” as both Governments claimed sovereignty over the Islands. That made negotiations very difficult, and there was a need to create a sound basis for such talks to proceed. While concerned about the Special Committee’s efforts to pass many resolutions over the years rather than resolving the issue, he said the text approved yesterday included issues that could let the situation move forward. It was logical to take into account the interests of the inhabitants, he said, expressing the hope that negotiations would take into account the interests of all three parties, the third party being the islanders, whose interest could not be negotiated away. In such a spirit, negotiations could lead to a resolution.
OUMAR DAOU (Mali), reaffirming his country’s attachment to the principles of the United Nations Charter, said the question of the Malvinas had been on the agenda for many years, with the Special Committee having approved a number of related resolutions by consensus. It was regrettable that the matter had not yet been resolved, he said, appealing to the United Kingdom and Argentina to create conditions favourable to implementation of the relevant resolutions. Mali would continue to support all efforts to bring both parties to the negotiating table in pursuit of a peaceful and lasting solution.
MARIA LUIZA RIBEIRO VIOTTI (Brazil), associating herself with yesterday’s statement on behalf of MERCOSUR (Southern Common Market), said a special and particular colonial situation remained in the Malvinas that, as recognized in resolution 2065 (XX), Argentina and the United Kingdom must settle by peaceful means, in accordance with relevant resolutions. Brazil supported the legitimate rights of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute over the Islands, she said, recalling that the Presidents of MERCOSUR’s member and associated States had reaffirmed in December 2006 the provisions of the 1996 Declaration of Portero de los Funes, which reiterated the incompatibility of recent initiatives with the existence of the sovereignty dispute.
Several other regional organizations and forums, including last week’s General Assembly of the Organization of American States shared the call for a prompt resumption of negotiations, she said. Brazil welcomed the diplomatic facilitation, announced on 26 May by Argentina and the United Kingdom, of the initiative by the Commission of Relatives of the Fallen in the Malvinas and South Atlantic Islands to inaugurate the monument at the Darwin Cemetery, with the expected trip of hundreds of Argentine relatives to the Malvinas in October. She encouraged a similar spirit of dialogue for a prompt, early and successful resumption of bilateral negotiations and a substantive solution to the Malvinas question.
The year 2010 would not only mark the conclusion of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, she noted, but also 45 years since the General Assembly had expressed, for the first time, the need for bilateral negotiations between the two parties. Almost five decades since that call concerning a colonial occupation that had continued for more than 175 years, the resolutions of the Assembly and the Special Committee deserved respect and a willingness to negotiate on the part of both parties. Brazil expected that, in its next session, the Special Committee would succeed in contributing to substantive progress in the peaceful resolution of the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas, according to the specificity of that colonial situation, the principles of the Charter and relevant resolutions.
GONZALO GUTIÉRREZ (Peru), associating himself with the MERCOSUR statement, said his country supported the efforts by the United Nations to end colonialism, a process that had seen great success over the years. It was a trend that could not be stopped. However, the question of the Malvinas was unique. Peru’s support for Argentina’s sovereignty over the Islands was based on history, geography and the law. Noting that Argentina had enjoyed control over the Territory until the plundering in 1833, he called for the resumption of negotiations between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom, saying there was no other path.
JORGE ARTURO REINA IDIAQUEZ (Honduras) emphasized the “hemispherical dimension” of the Malvinas question, saying that the countries of the region advocated a peaceful solution, with full respect for Argentina’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Heads of State attending the General Assembly of the Organization of American States in Honduras at the beginning of June had called upon Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume negotiations for a peaceful solution as soon as possible and for the normalization of relations between the two countries. The resolution adopted following Argentina’s presentation at that Summit welcomed its declaration of willingness to stand by its commitment to look into all possible ways to resolve the situation. Honduras believed in recourse to international forums and dialogue whenever bilateral negotiations failed, but, in accordance with international law, no territory obtained by force could be considered legally owned.
GERT ROSENTHAL (Guatemala) said that one of the principles of the United Nations was to ensure that the people of the world enjoyed the greatest level of self-government possible and that millions of people had freed themselves. Decolonization was one of the Organization’s successes and many countries had managed to achieve it. Despite that great success, the United Nations had not met all its targets and 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories remained on its list, including the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, as well as the surrounding maritime areas.
Since 1965 the United Nations had recognized a sovereignty dispute over that Territory, which was a special situation, he said. In 1833, part of Argentina’s territory had been occupied by force and its Argentine population displaced. Guatemala supported the special mandate and hoped that the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom would resume bilateral negotiations as soon as possible to achieve a just and lasting solution. Argentina had shown its willingness to resolve the dispute in a manner recognized by the Organization. Guatemala urged the United Kingdom to follow up on appeals for a resumption of the talks, and hoped that the new call for negotiations, set out by the draft resolution approved yesterday, would continue to move towards the aim set out by the United Nations in 1965.
CARMEN MARÍA GALLARDO HERNÁNDEZ (El Salvador) said the Malvinas question should be resolved on the basis of Argentina’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, a view based not only on bilateral and regional solidarity, but also on the fundamental principles of international law and natural rights that were geographical, legal and historical in nature. The need to resolve that situation had been reaffirmed in numerous resolutions of the United Nations and the Organization of American States.
She said various arguments presented by the colonial Power, seeking to justify its presence on the Islands and to remain there, represented a unilateral interpretation of how to address the question, she said. It failed to take into account that the Malvinas question was a sovereignty dispute, as recognized by the colonial Power in the 1965 notification regarding the willingness of both parties to initiate negotiations, in keeping with resolution 2065, which had been adopted unanimously by the General Assembly.
That resolution contained a mutual recognition by the parties of the existence of a colonial situation, she said. Both Governments had agreed to initiate negotiations towards a peaceful resolution of the problem and the same appeal to resume negotiations had been reiterated at a recent Ibero-American Summit held in El Salvador. It was the colonial Power’s moral and political duty to follow a diplomatic path.
JOSÉ LUIS CANCELA (Uruguay), endorsing the MERCOSUR statement, said his country supported the legitimate right of the Argentine Republic to sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. Uruguay reiterated the justness of the Argentine claim and called for the matter to be resolved in a manner approved by the United Nations and the Organization of American States. The Malvinas question was a special case since it involved a sovereignty dispute. General Assembly resolution 1514 pointed out the limits to the right of self–determination. This Malvinas question was also one of the territorial integrity of Argentina. Studies and legal experts had acknowledged that country’s connection with the islands until 1833. A peaceful solution was the obligation of both sides and he urged them to implement the resolutions already passed by the Assembly for the benefit of the entire South Atlantic.
DESSIMA M. WILLIAMS (Grenada), noting that her statement yesterday had not discussed the issue of rights and obligations, reiterated her country’s long-standing position that there were contending rights of self-determination and sovereignty in the matter of the Falklands (Malvinas). Those were the Charter principles that Saint Lucia encouraged the parties to take into consideration in their discussions.
Action on Draft
The Special Committee then took up a draft resolution titled “Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands” (document A/AC.109/2009/L.9), which addresses the situation in each of those Non-Self-Governing Territories. By its terms, the Special Committee would recommend that the General Assembly reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right.
By other terms of the text, the Assembly would reaffirm the responsibility of administering Powers to promote the economic and social development of Non-Self-Governing Territories, preserve their cultural identity and to mitigate, as a priority, the effects of the current financial crisis, where possible, in consultation with the territorial governments concerned, towards the strengthening and diversification of their respective economies.
Also by the text, the Assembly would further request the Territories and the administering Powers to protect and conserve the environment against any degradation, while also requesting the specialized agencies concerned to continue to monitor environmental conditions in the Territories and to provide assistance to them, consistent with their prevailing rules of procedure. The Assembly would, by further terms, stress the importance of constitutional exercises in the Territories administered respectively by the United Kingdom and the United States, and led by territorial governments, and decide to follow closely developments concerning their future political status.
The Special Committee approved the draft resolution without a vote.
Special Committee on Decolonization Unanimously Approves Text Calling for Direct Negotiations over Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
18 June 2009 General AssemblyGA/COL/3196 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on
Decolonization
9th Meeting (AM)
special committee on decolonization unanimously approves text calling for direct negotiations over falkland Islands (malvinas)
Members Hear from Foreign Minister of Argentina,
Petitioners, Including Members of Territorial Legislative Assembly
Having heard a statement by the Foreign Minister of Argentina in addition to petitioners from the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the Special Committee on Decolonization recommended today that the General Assembly call for direct negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom over that Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Introducing the draft resolution, which the Special Committee approved without a vote, Chile’s representative said the text reflected the main elements of the doctrine formulated by the United Nations over the years with regard to the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). It acknowledged the “special and particular colonial situation”, which differed from other colonial situations owing to the existence of a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom. The text also specified that the only way to put an end to the question was through a negotiated settlement of the dispute between the Governments of the two countries.
Noting that the text requested the parties to consolidate the process of dialogue and cooperation by resuming negotiations in pursuit of a solution, in accordance with United Nations resolutions on the subject, he expressed regret that, despite the time and numerous resolutions adopted by the United Nations to date, there had been no commencement of direct diplomatic negotiations between the parties with a view to finding a fair and definitive solution to the pending dispute relating to sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas.
Addressing the Special Committee prior to action on the draft, Jorge Taiana, Argentina’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship, reiterated his country’s “solid and permanent protest” since 1833 over “what was a manifest eviction of the Argentine authorities and population present on the Islands at the time”. The United Kingdom’s actions had fractured Argentina’s political unity and territorial integrity, by an act of usurpation which had been reaffirmed by the ensuing implantation of an alien population and systematic impediments blocking continental Argentines wishing to settle or own lands on the Islands. That alien population could never be considered a subjugated population or one subjected to a colonial Power. To pretend to apply the principle of self-determination to that population was a blunt distortion of reason, justice, law and history.
He pointed out that the United Kingdom called for the application of the principle of self-determination while simultaneously refusing to resume negotiations on sovereignty, thus ignoring the explicit and reiterated mandate of the international community. The United Kingdom alleged that it would only accept a resumption of negotiations should the inhabitants of the Islands so wish, thereby ignoring the will of United Nations Member States. That country was thus unilaterally introducing a precondition that did not figure in any of the relevant resolutions. For its part, Argentina reiterated its willingness to negotiate on the basis of international law, the principles of the United Nations Charter and the provisions of numerous resolutions.
Petitioner Richard Stevens, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said in that regard that it would be unfair to apply sovereignty rights to the Falklands case alone. “Imagine every country complying with these demands with every international border reverting back to how it was in 1833. Would America for example, return part of California to Mexico, or Russia demand Alaska?” That view of territorial integrity would also lead to unbelievable global chaos.
He went on to say that whoever would be elected to the Legislative Assembly toward the end of 2009 would come to power with a strong mandate regarding the Islands’ right to self-determination. They would ask the Special Committee to examine Argentina’s rhetoric, regardless of that country’s size and influence, and recognize the islanders’ right, as a small community, to live lives of their own choice rather than being swallowed up by an alien Power that saw them as impostors in their own land.
Another Member of the Legislative Council, Janet Robertson, said there were fundamental reasons why there was “no foreseeable prospect” that the United Kingdom would agree to negotiate. Argentina asserted that the principle of self-determination was not applicable due to the pre-existing sovereignty dispute, and that the principle of territorial integrity was of superior validity to that of self-determination.
Annexation by the Argentine State was, therefore, the only acceptable solution to the Government of Argentina, a goal enshrined in its Constitution, she said. That pre-determined outcome was wholly contrary to the wishes and interests of the islanders and, consequently, unacceptable to the United Kingdom. A resumption of negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom, without the participation and agreement of the islanders, could not, by definition, lead to a peaceful solution.
Addressing the Committee on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), the representative of Paraguay said the grouping and its associated States had repeatedly reaffirmed Argentina’s legitimate right in the dispute, a position supported by representatives of several Latin American countries. They had expressed full support for Argentina’s just claim of sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and adjoining maritime areas, and urged the resumption of negotiations between Argentina and United Kingdom with a view to finding a peaceful and final settlement to the sovereignty dispute.
Sierra Leone representative, however, while encouraging the parties to engage in peaceful dialogue, taking into account the interests and wishes of the islanders, expressed support for the right of the islanders to exercise their right to self-determination.
Other speakers were representatives of China, Russian Federation, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Indonesia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Grenada, Tunisia and Saint Lucia.
Also addressing the Special Committee were two Argentinean petitioners: Dolores Reynolds and Marcelo Luis Vernet.
The Special Committee will continue its debate on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) at 10 a.m. Friday, 19 June, when it is also expected to take up the situation in all 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Background
The Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples met this morning to hear petitioners on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Before it was a Secretariat working paper on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) (document A/AC.109/2009/13) outlining constitutional and political developments, as well as progress on mine clearance, economic and social conditions, and the future status of the Territory, among other things.
A new Constitution was approved in 2008 and entered into force on 1 January 2009, the working paper says. According to the administering Power, the new document, as compared with the 1985 Constitution, enhances local democracy, establishes a greater degree of internal self-government and provides greater transparency and accountability, such as through the creation of a Public Accounts Committee and a Complaints Commissioner. Moreover, it is in line with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. By its terms, the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly, may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory, but full power to make laws is reserved for the British Crown.
On 6 November 2008, the paper states, the Government of Argentina protested against a “unilateral act” by the United Kingdom “whereby it claims to have adopted a new ‘constitution’ for the Malvinas Islands”, in disregard of General Assembly and Special Committee resolutions and in “violation of the spirit of the provisional understandings under the sovereign formula” reached by Argentina and the United Kingdom. In response, the United Kingdom rejected those assertions on 3 December 2008.
The paper says that on 28 November 2008, the Ninth Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction -- known as the Ottawa Convention -- decided by consensus to grant the United Kingdom an extension until 1 March 2019 to complete mine clearance. At that meeting, the United Kingdom announced its intent to clear three mined areas and set up a national mine action authority.
According to the working paper, the representative of the United Kingdom noted, in a letter to the Assembly President dated 26 September 2008, that the Falkland Islands are not a colonial enclave. Their inhabitants have chosen to retain their link with the United Kingdom and there can be no negotiations on the sovereignty of the Islands unless the islanders wish to do so. In his New Year’s message to the Territory in January 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown restated his commitment to the islanders’ right to self-determination against the backdrop of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the conflict over the islands between the United Kingdom and Argentina.
The paper recalls that President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina criticized the United Kingdom in her 23 September 2008 address to the General Assembly, for resolutely refusing to discuss the issue of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Territory, requesting that the United Nations once again urge the United Kingdom to comply with international law and demonstrate a serious wish to build a different world and a different citizenry. At a meeting of the Special Committee on 12 June 2008, Argentina’s Foreign Minister, Jorge Taiana, reiterated his country’s inalienable rights over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia, and the South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas, unlawfully occupied by the United Kingdom through an act of force.
In a draft resolution on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the Special Committee recommends that the General Assembly reiterate that the way to end the special and particular colonial situation of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is through a peaceful negotiated settlement of the sovereignty dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. The Assembly would, by other terms of the draft (contained in document A/AC.109/2009/L.8), take note of the views expressed by the President of Argentina and express regret that implementation of its resolutions on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) has not yet started in spite of widespread international support for negotiations between the two Governments. The Assembly would further request the two Governments to consolidate the current process of dialogue and cooperation through the resumption of negotiations in order to find a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute as soon as possible.
Petitioners
RICHARD STEVENS, Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said the Argentines would argue on four main topics: the Spanish colonial claim inherited at independence in 1816; the brief partial and sporadic post-independence occupation before 1833; the Islands’ proximity to Argentina; and the transient nature of the Falklands population. It would be unfair to determine sovereignty rights by those arguments and apply them to the Falklands case alone, but otherwise, the implications would be huge.
“Imagine every country complying with these demands with every international border reverting back to how it was in 1833,” he said, asking whether the United States, for example, would return part of California to Mexico, or the Russian Federation demand Alaska. Such claims of territorial integrity would also mean unbelievable global chaos. It was better to concentrate on the islanders and their achievements, while demonstrating how they had earned their right to determine their own future.
He said that, while the islanders were accused by Argentina of being an itinerant, planted people shipped in by the British, their historic diversity continued to the present time, with individuals and families hailing from all over the world. They had a strong identity and knew the people who had built the Territory, from its roads, farms, shops and hotels to its businesses and modern private sector. All reasonable nations looked to negotiations as the way forward in the modern world, but Argentina was talking about the islanders’ total capitulation, a completely different concept.
Argentina would introduce the modern equivalent of the very thing that the Special Committee had been created to dissolve, he continued. Whoever was elected to the Legislative Assembly towards year’s end would come to power with a strong mandate regarding the Islands’ right to self-determination. They would ask the Special Committee to examine Argentina’s rhetoric, regardless of its size and influence, and recognize the islanders’ right, as a small community, to live lives of their own choice rather than be swallowed up by an alien Power that saw them as impostors in their own land.
JANET ROBERTSON, Member of the Legislative Assembly, said there were fundamental reasons why there was no foreseeable prospect that the United Kingdom would agree to negotiate. First of all, the islanders’ right to self-determination had been extended through the Constitution. Argentina asserted that the principle of self-determination was not applicable to the Falkland Islands due to a pre-existing sovereignty dispute and that the principle of territorial integrity was of superior validity to the principle of self-determination. The Argentine State’s annexation of the Islands was therefore the only acceptable solution to the Government of Argentina and, as such, was a goal enshrined in its Constitution. That predetermined outcome was wholly contrary to the wishes and interests of the islanders and consequently unacceptable to the United Kingdom.
She said that a resumption of negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom without the participation and agreement of the inhabitants could not, by definition, lead to a peaceful solution unless the express wishes of the islanders were deliberately and cynically silenced by force. While there was no apparent threat of a repetition of Argentina’s 1982 invasion, it was evident that other types of force were an ongoing facet of relations between the two countries, thereby pre-empting peaceful negotiations. They included withdrawal from regional cooperation on fisheries and hydrocarbons until such time as sovereignty was placed on the agenda; the ban on charter flights across Argentine airspace unless Argentine carriers were used to and from Argentine airfields; and the insistence on the use of “Puerto Argentino” instead of “ Stanley” for the Territory’s capital. Those actions pointed to a level of aggression that was not peacefully intended.
Such actions made peaceful cooperation on areas of mutual interest an ever-receding dream in the South Atlantic, she continued. Argentina claimed that those actions were in response to “unilateral” actions by the Government of the United Kingdom, such as the extension of its fisheries licensing regime to include 25‑year fishing quotas. In fact, those legitimate measures were the result of the Falkland Islands Government using its powers to develop long-term protection and development of its fisheries and represented sound management practices for the benefit of the islanders and the environment. Resolutions on the questions of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) were alone in referring, not to the inalienable right of the respective inhabitants to self-determination, but merely to the interests of the population.
It had never been clearly established why the Special Committee considered that, of all remaining denominated colonial peoples in the world, only Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders were denied that right, she said. When a 2008 meeting of the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) had approved an amendment to remove a recent insertion into a draft resolution –- thus qualifying the principle of self-determination with the words “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” –-delegates speaking in favour of the motion had expressed their deepest concern at the attempt to qualify one of the principles of the United Nations Charter. In any case, the principle of self-determination did not apply to the Falkland Islands. The Argentine occupation had been very brief, having occurred while their ownership was in plain and documented dispute. Therefore, the Territory had never formed a part of Argentina. They existed as a political entity in its current form for considerable time before the establishment of Argentina’s modern boundaries in the mid-nineteenth century.
DOLORES REYNOLDS, an Argentine economist, said she graduated from the Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires and was a direct descendent of Tomas Bridges, an Anglican pastor whose name was intimately linked with the history of the Malvinas Islands and Tierra del Fuego.
Stressing that she had spent her childhood in that province of South Argentina, she said there were many deep links between the islanders and the Argentine mainland, and her family’s story illustrated those links. Many British people who had arrived after 1833 understood that the two lands were linked by powerful bonds. The Argentine Republic’s just claim of sovereignty had been taken by force.
She said members of her family and other inhabitants, as well as many British inhabitants, had made a contribution to the culture and life of Argentina. The islanders’ isolation was absurd in the present era of globalization, and everybody would benefit from an end to it. Integration with the Argentine Republic would help provide many benefits, including in the areas of energy, public health, education, tourism and vibrant culture. The Special Committee should insist that the United Kingdom resume negotiations.
MARCELO LUIS VERNET said that, as a citizen of Argentina, he was tied to the Islands through family history. The Malvinas were naturally Argentine land and, since 1824, they had “an estancia”, with workers arriving from all corners of Argentina. “We were the people of the Malvinas”, who had formed a hard-working and hospitable population. An ancestor, Luis Vernet, had been a military commander on the Islands, monitoring compliance with fishing rules.
“Our land was stolen from us by an imperial Power for its own interests, but the Malvinas remained an Argentine land,” he said, stressing that usurpation was a violation not only of civil and political rights, but also of natural law. The sacred duty of the Argentine nation was to ensure the integrity of its name and respect for its rights. The Soledad and Malvina Islands were symbols of national identity and the name “Malvina” was very popular in Argentina. Those truths could not be invented or imposed.
One could not refuse to recognize that there was a sovereignty conflict, he said. Argentina’s Constitution contained a temporary clause which conveyed its conviction of the rightful nature of its claim. The clause was temporary because the country hoped the Islands would be returned. However, the Constitution also referred to respect for the Malvinas way of life. The inhabitants were also part of the Islands’ history. They were citizens of the usurping nation, living on the usurped land, but if one asked their names, one would discover that their fathers were English workers who had arrived during the industrial revolution, without land or future.
He said their history was very similar to that of his own predecessors, adding that people could think alike and work together. One of the possible ends to the story was that the two peoples’ respective grandchildren could go to the port of Soledad to recognize the first Argentine settler on the Islands. They might fall in love, thus closing a wide circle. The Special Committee should promote constructive dialogue between Argentina and the United Kingdom to find a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the sovereignty dispute.
Statements
HERALDO MUÑOZ ( Chile) introduced the draft resolution on the “Question of the Falklands Islands (Malvinas)” (document A/AC.109/2009/L.8), saying it reflected the main elements of the doctrine formulated by the United Nations over the years with regard to that question. The text acknowledged the special and particular colonial situation, which differed from others because of the existence of a sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom. It also specified that the only way to put an end to that question was a negotiated settlement of the dispute.
He expressed regret that, despite the time and numerous resolutions adopted to date, direct diplomatic negotiations between the parties had not commenced. Chile endorsed fully the statement to be made by the delegation of Paraguay on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) countries and associated States. Like other Latin American countries, Chile supported Argentina’s rights in the sovereignty dispute.
The issue was of concern to the Western Hemisphere, he said, noting that the thirty-ninth General Assembly of the Organization of American States, held in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, on 2-4 June, had adopted resolution AG/DEC 61, “Declaration on the Question of the Malvinas Islands”. The issue was also a matter of concern to the Ibero-American community. Chile reiterated that there was no valid reason for delaying the solution to the Malvinas question.
JORGE TAIANA, Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of Argentina, reiterated his country’s “solid and permanent protest” since 1833 over “what was a manifest eviction of the Argentine authorities and population present on the Islands at the time”. The land had been under Argentine sovereignty and peaceful and uninterrupted rule, when in 1833 it had been seized by the United Kingdom, thus fracturing the political unity and territorial integrity of the Argentine Republic. Argentina had never consented to that act of usurpation, which had been reaffirmed with the ensuing implantation of an alien population and systematic impediment to continental Argentines settling or owning land on the Islands. That population could never be considered a subjugated population or one subject to a colonial Power. To pretend to apply the principle of self-determination to that population was a blunt distortion of reason, justice, law and history.
Noting that that the United Kingdom called for the application of the principle of self-determination while simultaneously refusing to resume negotiations on sovereignty, he said it thus ignored the explicit and reiterated mandate of the international community, as contained in successive resolutions of the United Nations, the Organization of American States and many other forums. The United Kingdom alleged that it would only accept a resumption of negotiations if the islanders so wished, ignoring the will of United Nations Member States. It was thus unilaterally introducing a precondition that did not figure in any of the relevant resolutions, seeking to benefit from General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), distorting its interpretation and altering its primary goal, which was none other than ending colonial situations rather than perpetuating them.
He said that subjecting the resumption of negotiations to the dispute to the “wish” of the islanders was nothing but a trick to which the United Kingdom resorted in order to elude the United Nations imperative. Argentina reiterated its commitment to the right of self-determination but rejected the manipulation of that key principle by a Member State, in favour of a population artificially implanted by that country in a land usurped from Argentina by force, and which formed an indivisible part of Argentine territory. Argentina was not alone in that line of reasoning; the General Assembly had unequivocally ratified the applicability of the principle of territorial integrity to the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” each time that the United Kingdom had sought to include references to the principle of self-determination in draft resolutions on that matter.
The United Kingdom had carried out unilateral actions in the disputed area, distorting the bilateral cooperation agreed under the sovereignty formula, he said. Among those actions were the illicit application of a quota regime on fisheries resources, the illegitimate granting of licences to carry out hydrocarbon activities, and the British refusal to carry out non-scheduled flights between mainland Argentina and the Malvinas Islands. The United Kingdom had also attempted to include parts of the Argentine national territory in its submission to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, and erected a military base on the Islands. Those actions violated the mandate contained in Assembly resolution 31/49 (1976), which called upon the parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply the introduction of unilateral modifications while the Islands were going through the process recommended by the United Nations.
He said his country had immediately protested the “constitution” that the United Kingdom had granted to the Islands in November 2008, yet another unilateral action on a part of Argentine territory that contravened United Nations resolutions. The United Kingdom pretended to disguise, behind a supposedly “modern” or “post-colonial” constitutionalism, a colonial situation of special and particular characteristics resulting from the usurpation of Argentine territory by force, the expulsion of a local population and its replacement by one of British origin. Argentina expected the United Kingdom to pursue the path of dialogue in compliance with what had been established by the international community in many resolutions. For its part, Argentina reiterated its permanent willingness to negotiate on the basis of international law, the principles of the Charter and the provisions of numerous resolutions.
ELADIO LOIZAGA (Paraguay), speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), said MERCOSUR and associated States had reaffirmed repeatedly since the group’s creation the legitimate right of the Argentine Republic in the dispute regarding the Question of the Malvinas Islands. At a meeting in June 1996 the Presidents of the MERCOSUR member countries, as well as the Presidents of Bolivia and Chile, had approved the “Declaración Sobre las Malvinas”, which recorded that the interests of the Hemisphere backed a resolution to the dispute and urged that the two Governments find a quick resolution in conformity with the United Nations and the Organization of American States.
That position had been repeated in June 1999, when the sixteenth meeting of MERCOSUR had approved a new declaration and repeated their commitment to urge the two Governments to resume negotiations. More recently, at the last Summit of MERCOSUR in Salvador, Brazil, in December 2008, the group had reaffirmed the terms of the 1996 Declaration and repeated their support for Argentina’s legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute. It had also said that unilateral measures were not compatible with decisions of the United Nations. MERCOSUR urged the Special Committee to call on the two Governments to resume negotiations and quickly find a just solution to their long dispute.
LIU ZHENMIN ( China) noted that the General Assembly and Special Committee had always paid attention to the question of the Falklands (Malvinas) and passed resolutions appealing to Argentina and the United Kingdom to engage in negotiations in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. That reflected the aspiration of the overwhelming majority of the United Nations membership. China always held that territorial disputes should be resolved through peaceful negotiations, a principle that should be promoted by the international community. Hopefully the United Kingdom and Argentina would continue to engage in peaceful, constructive dialogue on the question of the Falklands (Malvinas) in pursuit of a peaceful and fair resolution of the issue.
VICTORIA SULIMANI ( Sierra Leone) reaffirmed her delegation’s commitment to the principle of self-determination of all peoples, noting that colonialism in all its forms and manifestations was incompatible with the principles of the Charter, Chapter 11 of which ensured the responsibility of administrating Powers to promote the well-being of the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories. It was in that spirit that Sierra Leone supported the position that the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) should be allowed to exercise their right to self-determination.
Sierra Leone believed equally that the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom should be resolved through peaceful means, in accordance with relevant resolutions, she said. The two countries should be encouraged to engage in peaceful dialogue, taking into account the interests and wishes of the islanders. At the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, Sierra Leone remained committed to decolonization, believing that self-determination was a prerequisite for the realization of fundamental human rights
KONSTANTIN DOLGOV ( Russian Federation) voiced support for the draft resolution, saying he hoped it would be approved without a vote. Hopefully it would be in accordance with the framework of bilateral negotiations and resolutions adopted by the General Assembly.
BASHAR JA’AFARI ( Syria) said the statement by the Argentine Minister showed his country’s desire for a peaceful settlement of the issue. Today’s meeting reaffirmed Argentina’s importance to the tasks of the Special Committee. The statement also showed Argentina’s belief in democracy in international relations, which was a foundation of that country’s foreign policy.
He said his country agreed with the stance taken at the Arab-Latin American Summit, held in Doha in March 2009, as well that taken by the “Group of 77” developing countries and China and the Non-Aligned Movement. Syria supported the draft resolution and believed that its approval by consensus would reaffirm the international community’s role in resolving the issue. The resumption of dialogue and meetings between the two Governments would help lead to a solution.
JORGE VALERO (Venezuela), endorsing the MERCOSUR statement, said his country was among the co-sponsors of the draft resolution, as in previous years, and reiterated its full support for Argentina’s just claim of legitimate sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, as well as adjoining maritime areas. Venezuela also reaffirmed that resuming bilateral negotiations for a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the dispute was the right way to resolve the anachronistic colonial situation of the Malvinas. Its firm support of that position had been ratified once again in a joint declaration issued during a visit by President Hugo Chavez to Argentina in May.
At the multilateral level, there had been successive resolutions of the United Nations and statements of the Organization of American States, he noted. Many other forums had urged a prompt solution to the long sovereignty dispute, in support of Argentina’s claims. “We must insist on the need to put an end, as contained in many resolutions on the question of the Malvinas Islands, to the long sovereignty dispute between Argentina and United Kingdom.” In that context, Venezuela encouraged the good offices conferred by the General Assembly and the Secretary-General, aimed at bringing the parties closer together.
He went on to say that 176 years had passed since the act that had disrupted Argentina’s territorial unity and integrity. At that time, the United Kingdom had expelled the population, practising expansion. The Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands belonged to Argentina, and Venezuela supported the statement by that country’s Foreign Minister, who had justly shown that his country’s claim was entirely just.
ABELARDO MORENO ( Cuba) said the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) was among the issues that had been, for the longest time, under permanent consideration by the United Nations. The Special Committee had approved 43 draft resolutions on that matter, and the General Assembly had adopted 10 resolutions. As defined in resolution 2065 (XX), the question of the Malvinas involved a dispute over the sovereignty of the Islands between Argentina and the United Kingdom. It was clearly stipulated that the dispute should be settled through negotiations, taking into account the objectives and provisions of the Charter, as well as the interests of the islanders. It was a fact that the Malvinas had been occupied in 1833 by the United Kingdom, which had then forcefully expelled the population settled there, subsequently replacing Argentine settlers with British ones. Now Argentine citizens were not even allowed to return or settle on the Islands.
Since then, he said, the Argentine Government had been willing to recover, through negotiations, the exercise of its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, in accordance with relevant resolutions. Regrettably, despite continuous calls by the Special Committee and various Assembly resolutions, a definitive solution to the long sovereignty dispute was no closer today. Cuba reiterated its support for Argentina’s legitimate right in the dispute over the Islands, which were part of that Latin American sister nation. The support had been reiterated at the highest levels and in different regional forums, such as the Rio Group, the Iberoamerican Community of Nations and the South American Community of Nations.
He reiterated his country’s call for a negotiated, just and definitive solution to the dispute at the earliest possible time, taking into account both respect for Argentine territorial integrity and recognition of the islanders’ interests. Cuba urged the United Kingdom to consider the successive calls by the Special Committee to hold negotiations and give a positive response to Argentina’s reiterated willingness to renew the bilateral negotiations process. There must be no unilateral actions modifying the situation of the Islands. As one of the co-sponsors of the draft, Cuba called upon all members of the Special Committee to support it so it could be approved without a vote.
HASAN KLEIB ( Indonesia) said the historical and political background of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) case formed a particular and special dimension that differed from so-called traditional situations. Resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII) took note of the existence of a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom, and encouraged both parties to seek a peaceful solution to the problem. Both resolutions also identified the need to accelerate negotiations for an early settlement.
Other relevant United Nations resolutions provided guidance on the need to address the case by means of a peaceful negotiated settlement, in the best interests of the islanders, he said, adding that his country therefore urged the resumption of negotiations, in accordance with relevant resolutions and decisions, and based on the principle of territorial integrity and full acknowledgement of the interests of the Islands’ population. Indonesia was heartened to learn of the good relationship established between the two Governments in various areas, and wished to encourage both parties to use that good relationship as a foundation for resuming negotiations and exploring all possible means towards a peaceful and mutually acceptable solution.
PABLO SOLON ROMERO (Bolivia), noting that his country was a co-sponsor of the draft resolution and endorsed the MERCOSUR statement, urged the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to resume negotiations and quickly find a just solution to their dispute. The country that had refused dialogue in that situation enjoyed a privileged seat on the Security Council and the Falklands (Malvinas) situation confirmed that the existence of permanent members was no safeguard of peaceful solutions to conflict. Permanent membership should be abolished in the twenty-first century.
MARIA FERNANDA ESPINOSA ( Ecuador) endorsed the MERCOSUR statement and noted that since 1945, the Argentine Republic had reaffirmed, within the United Nations, its international right to the Malvinas. Ecuador supported consensus approval of the draft before the Special Committee and urged both parties to resume talks as soon as possible. Bolivia also urged the United Kingdom to meet the appeals of the United Nations.
DESSIMA M. WILLIAMS ( Grenada) said she had heard the long and entwined history of the region and lamented the fact that unresolved issues from previous centuries had been carried into the twenty-first century. The numerous resolutions passed by the United Nations on the Falklands (Malvinas) issue should guide the Special Committee. Grenada called for a resumption of talks between the two Governments and looked forward to consensus approval of the draft resolution.
Action on Draft
As the draft resolution was presented for action, the representative of Saint Lucia, speaking in explanation of position, proposed that the last preambular paragraph, reaffirming the need for the parties to take due account of the interests of the Islands’ population, should be included in the operative part of the text in order add “give weight and substance” to it.
The representative of Chile said that in order to continue with the Special Committee’s work, his delegation favoured maintaining the text as presented.
The representative of Saint Lucia responded by saying he was not suggesting a change in language, but wished to highlight something that was dealt with “almost en passant”.
The representatives of Bolivia, Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Grenada voiced their support for the text in its original form, saying it reflected practically all concerns and points of view expressed during consultations. Perhaps the suggestions made would be considered in the future, but for now, members of the Special Committee should support the text, which traditionally was approved by consensus.
The representative of Grenada added in that regard his country’s concerns could be identified in other parts of the text.
MARTY M. NATALEGAWA ( Indonesia) Chair of the Special Committee, said those comments would be duly reflected in the meeting’s records.
Acting without a vote, the Special Committee then approved the draft resolution on the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
Explanations of Vote
Mr. DONATUS KEITH ST. AIMEE (Saint Lucia) said he had never said that he did not want the draft resolution approved by consensus, but had made a constructive suggestion, and was disappointed that his remarks had been interpreted to mean he was against the draft. Saint Lucia hoped to have an opportunity in a future statement to explain its difficulties with the text.
JALEL SNOUSSI ( Tunisia) welcomed the consensus approval, saying it showed the international community’s commitment to solving the matter definitively. Tunisia hoped the two Governments would return to the negotiating table in pursuit of a just solution.
Special Committee on Decolonization Approves Text Welcoming Developments in New Caledonia since 1998 Signing of Noumea Accord
16 June 2009 General AssemblyGA/COL/3194 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on
Decolonization
7th Meeting (AM)
special committee on decolonization approves text welcoming developments in new caledonia since 1998 signing of noumea accord
Petitioner on Western Sahara Tells of Continuing
Illegal Occupation, Exploitation of Territory’s Natural Resources
The General Assembly would welcome significant developments in New Caledonia since the 1998 signing of the Nouméa Accord by representatives of that Non-Self-Governing Territory and the Government of France, according to a draft resolution approved by the Special Committee on Decolonization today.
By other terms of the draft, the Assembly would urge all the parties involved to maintain their dialogue in a spirit of harmony, and welcome in that context the unanimous agreement, reached in Paris on 8 December 2008, on the transfer of powers to New Caledonia in 2009 and the conduct of provincial elections in that year.
Introducing the text, which was later approved without a vote, the representative of Fiji said progress had been achieved in implementing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries in New Caledonia. In particular, the text welcomed the adoption on 26 June 2008 of a draft country law (loi du pays) on the Territory’s identity symbols and the acceptance, on 21 October 2008, of the draft law on its anthem, motto and banknote design.
Among other factual updates included in the draft, he noted the concerns expressed by representatives of New Caledonia’s indigenous people about incessant migratory flows and the impact of mining on the environment. Furthermore, the text welcomed the Territory’s participation in the thirty-ninth Summit of the Pacific Islands Forum in August 2008, following its accession to the Forum as an associate member in October 2006.
Concluding his presentation, he emphasized the crucial importance of cooperation and collaboration in the often difficult process of decolonization, saying that his delegation and that of Papua New Guinea acknowledged that such close cooperation with France was not new. The two co-sponsors of the draft resolution wished to promote that cooperative and collaborative approach as the Special Committee’s way forward.
The representative of Papua New Guinea noted mutual cooperation between the co-sponsors and the administering Power in finalizing the text and expressed his appreciation for the Bureau’s assistance and guidance.
As the Special Committee ‑‑ also known as the Special Committee of 24 or formally as the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries ‑‑ took up the question of Western Sahara, a petitioner, Ahmed Boukhari of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Frente Polisario), said that Morocco continued illegally to occupy the Territory and that United Nations efforts to finalize its decolonization had not been successful due to that country’s refusal to accept the Saharawi people’s right to self-determination and independence.
He recalled that in June 2007, the Frente Polisario and the Moroccan Government had entered into direct negotiations, as requested by the Security Council, the fourth round of which had been held in April 2008. Those talks had not progressed because Morocco had insisted on unacceptable pre-conditions. In reality, Morocco did not want to negotiate, but to impose its proposal for autonomy as the only possible solution, presenting it on a “take it or leave it” basis.
Morocco, he continued, did not wish to discuss the Frente Polisario proposal to allow the Saharawi people to exercise their right to self-determination through a referendum that would include all options recognized by the United Nations, including independence. Morocco had recognized that option in signing the 2003 settlement plans and the 1997 Houston Agreements. The proposal stated that, in the event that the Saharawi people opted for independence, the Frente Polisario would offer Morocco the chance to negotiate the basis for a strategic relationship in the economic, security, commercial and social spheres.
He went on to say that, following his appointment in August 2008, Christopher Ross, the Secretary-General’s new Personal Envoy, had not officially assumed his functions until January 2009 due to Morocco’s initial rejection of his appointment. In February, Mr. Ross had made his first official visit to the region, and reported to the Security Council in April. His mandate was to try to reactivate the negotiations begun in Manhasset. The Personal Envoy had proposed, as a preliminary step, that the two parties begin informal negotiations. The Frente Polisario had expressed its support for the Personal Envoy and did not know why those meetings had not yet taken place.
Western Sahara was occupied by an estimated 150,000 Moroccan soldiers and divided into two parts by a shameful wall protected by those forces and 5 million anti-personnel landmines, he said. Morocco had intensified its exploitation and commercialization of the Territory, awarding its best natural resources, notably phosphorous and fishing, to the highest bidder. It was also including foreign companies in prospecting for petroleum, in serious violation of international law governing a Territory in the process of decolonization. That violation was particularly serious when taking into account that in January 2002 Hans Corell, then Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, had said that the Organization did not consider Morocco to be the sovereign or administering Power in Western Sahara.
Turning to human rights, he drew the Special Committee’s attention to the respective reports of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in October 2007, Human Rights Watch in December 2008 and the Ad Hoc Committee of the European Parliament in February 2009. All those reports stated that Morocco had violated human rights in Western Sahara on the basis of its refusal to respect the Territory’s right to self-determination, and agreed with the need for the United Nations, through the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), to observe and protect human rights until the conflict was resolved.
All the Secretary-General’s reports since October 2006 stated his concern about the human rights situation in the Territory, he continued. Various non-permanent members of the Security Council had tried, in 2008 and 2009, to include in the Council’s resolution on the question of Western Sahara an expansion of MINURSO’s mandate to incorporate human rights. However, Morocco, with the support of France, had reduced that to a mere mention of a “human dimension” to the conflict. That had only served to consolidate the perception of double standards in the Council.
The fact that Western Sahara remained on the Special Committee’s agenda had made the Territory a living symbol of the failure by the United Nations to comply fully and effectively with its collective responsibility. During the recent Caribbean Regional Seminar on decolonization in Saint Kitts and Nevis, the Frente Polisario had reminded everyone that since 1969, Morocco had repeatedly and explicitly recognized before the Special Committee and the General Assembly the right of the Saharawi people to full independence. The Saharawi would not renounce full realization of that right, and the vast majority of United Nations Member States shared that view.
As members of the Special Committee took the floor, the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said it was both unfortunate and unacceptable that Western Sahara remained the only unresolved case on the African continent. The Assembly had consistently recognized the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination and independence, repeatedly adopting resolutions and decisions on the matter that went unheeded. The Security Council had also consistently called for the self-determination of the Saharawi people.
Addressing the question of human rights, he said it remained a contested issue that could not be wished away and must, therefore, be handled with objective transparency. Such concerns would be handled in a credible manner if relevant United Nations organs like the Security Council and the Human Rights Council had a role in that regard. The United Republic of Tanzania also called attention to reported illegal exploitation of Western Sahara’s natural resources, which merited the Special Committee’s attention.
Cuba’s representative said the United Nations had reaffirmed on numerous occasions that the conflict in Western Sahara was a question of decolonization and, therefore, fell under the Organization’s direct responsibility. The Special Committee must play a central role in considering the issue. As confirmed by numerous resolutions, only the Saharawi people could decide their own future, without conditions of any kind. Over the last few years, four rounds of negotiations had been carried out under the Secretary-General’s auspices and the parties had reaffirmed their intention to continue those negotiations. Hopefully a solution would be found that would guarantee self-determination for the Saharawi people on the basis of the United Nations Charter and resolution 1514.
The Saharawi people needed the support of the international community, he continued, adding that despite its modest resources, his country had contributed to their development, especially in terms of education. In accordance with the Assembly’s annual appeals for offers of study and training opportunities to the people of Non-Self-Governing Territories, 475 Saharawi students were now studying in Cuba. As it had always done in the past, Cuba would support a just and definitive solution to the question of Western Sahara, in conformity with the relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.
Venezuela’s representative supported self-determination and independence for the Saharawi people, while the representative of Côte d’Ivoire said that, with the appointment of a new Personal Envoy, the time had come to evaluate the situation and find new approaches to the question of Western Sahara.
The Special Committee will continue its work at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 17 June.
Special Committee on Decolonization Hears Petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain Opposes Its Removal from List of Non-Self-Governing Territories
9 June 2009 General AssemblyGA/COL/3192 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Special Committee on
Decolonization
4th Meeting (AM)
special committee on decolonization hears petitioner from gibraltar as spain opposes its removal from list of Non-Self-Governing Territories
As the Special Committee on Decolonization took up the question of Gibraltar this morning, the representative of Spain opposed any attempt to remove it from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories undergoing decolonization, and reiterated the Spanish Government’s wish to renew “conversations” with the United Kingdom on the future of Gibraltar.
Reiterating Spain’s full commitment to the decolonization process, he stressed the particular prominence of the question of Gibraltar, which concerned two member States of the European Union and allies within the North Atlantic Treaty. The situation of Gibraltar undermined Spain’s national unity and territorial integrity.
He emphasized that the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, under which Gibraltar must remain British or once again become Spanish, was still in force, accepted both by Spain and the United Kingdom. The United Nations, through its annual decisions, urged the United Kingdom and Spain to maintain bilateral negotiations in order to find a solution that would take into account the interests of the colony’s inhabitants. In accordance with that mandate, the Government of Spain reiterated firmly its wish to renew conversations with the United Kingdom within the framework of the Brussels process.
Underscoring the continuing relevance of the Special Committee’s work, he said his country supported its Chairman’s pragmatic and realistic approach, which took into account the specific circumstances of each Non-Self-Governing Territory, on a case-by-case basis, and opposed any attempt to de-list Gibraltar -- which would undermine the procedure established by the United Nations -- on the basis of an alleged new, modern constitutional relationship that was no more than a sort of “colonialism by consent”, and which failed to comply with the doctrine or the content of United Nations resolutions.
He also stressed his country’s commitment to the Forum of Dialogue on Gibraltar, established in 2004, which focused on cooperation in finding a solution to local problems affecting the welfare of Gibraltar’s inhabitants. Spain hoped that the agreements reached within the Forum, and the implementation of decisions taken there, would contribute to the creation of conditions favourable to resolving the question of sovereignty separately, within the framework of the Brussels process. Meanwhile, Spain reaffirmed its willingness to negotiate with the United Kingdom, within the framework of the United Nations, in order to pave the way, once again, for the adoption of a consensus Assembly decision on Gibraltar.
The Committee also heard a petitioner from Gibraltar, Leader of the Opposition J.J. Bossano, who said that in terms of the Territory’s decolonization, Spain was “stuck in a time warp”, expecting Gibraltarians to accept that their rights as a people should be measured by the yardstick of the Europe that had existed in 1713 rather than by the human rights values of 2009. Spain had used the spurious claim that a territorial dispute doctrine invented by the Special Committee overrode the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, covenants on political and social rights and long-established international jurisprudence on decolonization and self-determination.
This year, instead of demonstrating respect and support, Spain had challenged the sovereignty of Gibraltar’s territorial waters, he said. Spain’s position that Gibraltar could not have territorial waters, which were not provided for under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, was wrong under international law. In the past, Spain had respected Gibraltar’s territorial waters on the median line in the Bay of Gibraltar and the three miles off the coast, including the zone adjacent to the isthmus not covered by the Treaty. It had not attempted to apply Spanish law to vessels anchored in those areas.
Spain had previously demarcated the flight paths over Gibraltar’s waters to and from the local airport, which were followed by aircraft not permitted to use Spanish airspace, he noted. This year, however, Spain had claimed responsibility for the environmental protection of Gibraltar’s waters, which it had been unable to deliver. Spain had also made a number of incursions into Gibraltar’s territorial jurisdiction, forcing the United Kingdom, as the administering Power, to take action to protect the sovereignty of Gibraltar’s waters, as required by the Territory’s Constitution.
He said that, having accepted that Gibraltarians were a separate people from those of the administering Power, as required by resolution 1541 (XV) principle (IV), it was not for the Special Committee to arbitrate, mandate or establish a doctrine as to the appropriate relevant monarch for Gibraltar. The monarch’s identity was irrelevant for the purpose of eradicating colonialism. Decolonization could only happen when the peoples of the Territories’ exercised self-determination. Without the Gibraltarians, there would be no colonial relationship to correct, but only an uninhabited piece of land subject to a territorial dispute.
He said Spain had used false arguments to pursue its case, relying on the natural special relationship it enjoyed with some of its former colonies for support. The Special Committee’s Spanish-speaking members should acknowledge and accept that they had more in common with Gibraltar than with Spain in terms of commitment to decolonization and the right to self-determination, regardless of Hispanic cultural affinity. The Special Committee should conduct an assessment of the constitutional changes in Gibraltar, in line with its duty to monitor progress in the Territories towards self-government. The United Kingdom had claimed that Gibraltar’s new Constitution made for a non-colonial relationship with the United Kingdom; the Special Committee’s report to the Fourth Committee should comment on that change instead of once again deferring the matter for another year.
Noting Spain’s position that Gibraltar should revert to Spanish rule while retaining all the privileges it currently enjoyed as a Non-Self-Governing Territory under British rule, he said that flew in the face of the Special Committee’s decolonization mandate. Gibraltar would not cede to or share with Spain one inch of land, one drop of territorial water or any airspace whatsoever. The Special Committee should consider the question of Gibraltar as it would any other Non-Self-Governing Territory and not allow itself to be led astray by the misguided, self-serving arguments of Spain, whose sole objective was to replace the United Kingdom as administering Power.
The Committee will take up its decision of 9 June 2008 concerning Puerto Rico at 10 a.m. on Monday, 15 June.
Background
The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples met this morning to take up the question of Gibraltar.
Before members was a Secretariat working paper on Gibraltar (document A/AC.109/2009/15) outlining the constitutional, legal and political issues, as well as the economic and social conditions in the Territory, its future status, and the role of the Special Committee and the General Assembly’s Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization). Gibraltar’s last general elections were held on 11 October 2007, when the incumbent Social Democratic Party obtained 49 per cent of the vote and its leader, Peter Caruana, was reappointed Chief Minister for a fourth term. The next elections are due by the end of October 2011.
Recalling a statement made during a meeting of the Fourth Committee on 7 October 2008, the working paper notes that the representative of the United Kingdom described Gibraltar’s new Constitution as providing for a modern, non-colonial relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom, acceptable to both sides, a factor that the Special Committee’s criteria for “de-listing” a Non-Self Governing Territory failed to take into account. In the same meeting, Mr. Caruana stated that the “question of Gibraltar” was no longer one of decolonization, for that matter had been settled by the new constitutional arrangement approved by the people of Gibraltar in a self-determination referendum.
The working paper goes on to cite the Chief Minister’s call for direct action by the General Assembly to de-list Gibraltar since the territorial government had broken ties with the Special Committee and had acted alone to achieve its own decolonization. The Fourth Committee’s annual resolution on the question of Gibraltar did not represent a consensus insofar as the United Kingdom and Spain were concerned, but rather masked profound disagreement. The resolution also considered the Brussels process to be ongoing even though the United Kingdom and Spain had not met under that process since 2001. The two countries signed the Brussels Declaration in November 1984.
Turning to the statement by the representative of Spain during the same meeting, the working paper cites him as saying he could not accept the United Kingdom’s contention that its new constitutional decree nullified the need to fulfil earlier United Nations resolutions concerning Gibraltar, which remained a colonial Territory. Also unacceptable was the United Kingdom’s claim that it was justified not to resume negotiations with Spain owing to its commitment to the people of Gibraltar not to enter into understandings concerning sovereignty without their consent.
According to the working paper, the representative of Spain supported the United Nations position, confirmed in successive resolutions, that the decolonization of Gibraltar could not be the result only of bilateral negotiations between Spain and the United Kingdom, in view of the sovereignty dispute and the related issues of Spain’s territorial integrity. The principle of self-determination therefore did not apply in Gibraltar’s case. Spain was determined to continue working with the Forum of Dialogue on Gibraltar, a framework separate from the Brussels process, and was fully committed to addressing questions of local cooperation in the context of the Forum.
Caribbean Regional on Decolonization Concludes Work with Discussion on Priorities for Way Forward, Role of Special Committee
14 May 2009 General AssemblyGA/COL/3190 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
CARIBBEAN REGIONAL ON DECOLONIZATION CONCLUDES WORK WITH DISCUSSION
ON PRIORITIES FOR WAY FORWARD, ROLE OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Calls Heard for Additional International Decade as Time Runs out on Key Goals
(Received from a UN Information Officer.)
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS, 14 May -- At the conclusion of its three-day review of the challenges and opportunities associated with the decolonization process today, participants of the 2009 Caribbean regional seminar on decolonization exchanged views on the impact of the event and considered the way forward in promoting the goals of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010).
The event was the last Caribbean seminar conducted by 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 -- in the framework of the Second International Decade.
In his closing statement, the Special Committee Chairperson, Marty M. Natalegawa ( Indonesia) noted that “good, constructive discussions” had been held during the seminar. Representatives of territorial Governments, administering Powers and other Member States, experts and civil society had made valuable contributions on how to move decolonization forward in the context of a changing world. The seminar had discussed various emerging challenges, which could affect the Non-Self-Governing Territories on their path towards decolonization, as well as opportunities that might be available in responding to them. The issues addressed included the impact of climate change, the global economic and financial crisis, the role of regional cooperation, education and public awareness, as well as the role of women, the empowerment of vulnerable people and the capacity for full self-government towards self-determination.
He stressed the value of comparative analysis in fostering a better understanding of decolonization and status-related issues, and highlighted political maturity, economic sustainability, enhanced administrative capacity and strengthened regional cooperation among the elements that Non-Self-Governing Territories needed in responding to the challenges of today. Due to the cross-cutting nature of those challenges, it was important to approach those elements in a holistic and mutually reinforcing manner. In response to climate change, which had exposed the vulnerability of many Non-Self-Governing Territories, regional cooperation could play a crucial role in the field of disaster preparedness, for example.
That in turn might also contribute to enhancing the capacity of the Non-Self-Governing Territories for full self-government, he said. Indeed, regional cooperation and regional arrangements offered important opportunities for many Non-Self-Governing Territories. They contributed to the development of a strong regional identity and strengthened concrete functional cooperation in various areas of mutual interest. An important role in that regard was played by the United Nations regional commissions, such as the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and bodies like the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), as well as various United Nations specialized agencies.
The global economic crisis had further highlighted the importance of economic sustainability and diversification of the economic base in the Non-Self-Governing Territories, he said. Relevant territorial Governments and administering Powers might approach that by stepping up attention to community-based development, including the development of small and medium enterprises, promotion of micro-financing and employment-generating activities, and the empowerment of vulnerable groups. Education and public outreach were also crucial for decolonization. It was particularly relevant to enable the people concerned to make informed decisions regarding their future political status. In that context, various deliberations on decolonization and status-related exercises in the Territories should connect, in a meaningful way, to the reality on the ground and the people concerned.
The seminar had recognized the important role of women in the decolonization process, he said, adding that gender equality contributed significantly to good governance and enhanced the capacity for self-governance through equal rights for all. Participants had held an extensive exchange of views on the status-related and constitution exercises in various Territories -- delicate matters requiring a meeting of certain expectations, as well as a transparent, accountable, inclusive and participatory approach that involved the people concerned. They needed to be in line with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, as well as the Organization’s resolutions and decisions on decolonization. They needed to adhere to human rights standards and the principles of good governance and democracy, while building upon the identity, cultural norms and local values of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. Again, education and public outreach could be crucial in that regard.
There had also been a frank exchange of views about how the Special Committee could enhance its capacity to better understand the situation in each Non-Self-Governing Territory, he continued. It was necessary to look into ways to better assess the current stage of decolonization and self-determination in each Territory and what remained to be done. It was necessary, among other things, to look more thoroughly into how to put the United Nations decolonization mandate into practice and to continue working towards the possibility of sending visiting missions to the Territories. Enhanced interaction and cooperation between the Special Committee and the administering Powers remained crucial. It might be useful in that context to explore the possibility of creating frameworks for talks involving the Territories, the administering Powers and the Special Committee.
“We had valuable discussions on the way forward,” he said, noting that the underlying principle for the way forward was how to enhance the Special Committee’s relevance to the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. Indeed, that was also the main purpose of the seminar. “This is not the end.” Participating members would need to provide the Special Committee with their conclusions and recommendations.
At the conclusion of the event, the seminar adopted a draft resolution expressing appreciation to the Government and people of Saint Kitts and Nevis.
In his closing statement on behalf of the host country, Delano Frank Bart, Permanent Representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis to the United Nations, characterized the seminar as “the penultimate event” in the course of the Decade. “You have grappled with the myriad issues, which directly or indirectly affect the process of decolonization, especially in the small island Territories, which constitute the majority of the 16 Territories formally listed by the United Nations.” The theme “Challenges and opportunities in the process of decolonization in today’s world” had indeed showcased many pertinent issues facing the Special Committee, the Non-Self-Governing Territories, the administering Powers and the international community as a whole.
He said the debate had been emotional at times, and it was clear that the deliberations had been wide-ranging and intense, but that underscored the importance of the Special Committee and the seminars. The fusion of ideas emanating from the seminar would provide for greater understanding of the issues involved and foster greater cooperation among all the parties concerned. It was clear that the process of self-determination leading to decolonization had become increasingly complex, requiring creative and innovative solutions.
Many new ideas were reflected in the expert papers presented this week and further refined through the participants’ reflections, he said. What should be taken away from the seminar was that the international community needed to work together and remain engaged in “the affairs of our fellow man, whatever their political reality”. The presentations by elected territorial leaders had provided special insights in respect of the situation on the ground and prospects for the way forward. The deliberations had been enhanced further by the insights of Member States and other members of the Special Committee with a special interest.
The tenor of overall discussions suggested a gathering of momentum to take a collective qualitative leap forward, he said. Over the previous 18 months, the energy, food and financial crises had manifested themselves, and in the next few weeks the United Nations would hold a meeting at the highest level to address the financial crisis. At that and all future meetings, the concerns of Non-Self-Governing Territories should remain in the international community’s collective consciousness. The Territories had been hit as hard as most countries, if not more, but their concerns were often marginalized. “Our role is to ensure that all needs are met, especially the needs of those of us who are not governing themselves.”
Highlighting the impact of climate change, he said that, of the 16 Territories under the Special Committee’s mandate, the majority were islands. Therefore, the concerns of small island developing States within the United Nations system were also the concerns of those Territories. They were among the most vulnerable and needed to be aware of the commitment of the international community to stand by them and “weather the storm together”.
Recalling that his country had recently celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary of independence, he said Saint Kitts and Nevis remembered the concerns of the pre-independence period. One needed the goodwill of all parties to resolve such issues, and the participants should, therefore, take away with them a determination to ensure that the day would come in the not-too-distant future, when the Special Committee’s work would bear fruit, and that the solutions found would be in the best interests of all concerned.
Presenting the draft report of the seminar, Rapporteur Albert V. Sitnikov ( Russian Federation) said that the document would include a narrative portion describing the organization and proceedings of the event, and participating members of the Special Committee would provide it with their conclusions and recommendations. That part of the draft had previously been formulated by a drafting group in closed meetings during the seminar. However, that had not always been productive due to time constraints, for example, and the report had generally been finalized back in New York. On 3 April 2009, the Special Committee had revised the rules of procedure for the seminar and it would no longer have a drafting group. Instead, the conclusions and recommendations would be considered and finalized in New York by participating members.
Way Forward
At the outset of today’s meeting, participants focused on the way forward, considering priorities for the remainder of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism.
Addressing the Special Committee’s future work, several speakers recommended setting up a clear “checklist” of Non-Self-Governing Territories’ accomplishments to measure their progress along the path to decolonization. It had been proposed that the Special Committee undertake a more interactive approach in gathering information about the situation in each Non-Self-Governing Territory, engaging more actively with the administering Powers. That point was echoed by one speaker, who called for a more robust programme of work with the administering Powers, so as to advance self-determination, highlighting also the need to promote the Territories’ involvement with regional organizations. With only two agencies of the United Nations system attending the seminar, the Special Committee should seek their increased involvement in such events. The resolutions adopted each year should be more action-oriented.
Several participants emphasized the importance of education and dissemination of information, with one speaker stressing: “You cannot insist on your rights, unless you understand them.” Decisions on self-determination must be based on full information, and the Special Committee needed to pay particular attention to that. Another participant added, however, that education was not the responsibility of the Special Committee alone; regional and non-governmental organizations could play an important role in that regard. She also emphasized the need to involve United Nations information centres in education and awareness-raising campaigns in the Territories. In addition to publications and electronic media, traditional media like radio and television, which could have a high impact in Non-Self-Governing Territories, should not be disregarded. There was also a need to provide financial assistance for the Territories’ efforts to promote education, convene constitutional conventions and carry out other activities related to self-government.
One speaker said that, even with the Second International Decade coming to an end, its priorities remained unambiguous. “First, we must remain engaged. It is essential that, within the mandate that governs our work, we intensify the commitment of every stakeholder, particularly the Non-Self-Governing Territories.” Of equal importance were cooperation on the part of the administering Powers and the preparedness of the Special Committee to continue to encourage and stimulate the necessary dialogue. It was also important to focus more productively on the specific needs of each Territory in terms of their political and economic needs, and how the United Nations system could be of assistance in each case.
As much as it had been hoped that the Second Decade would see the full resolution of all decolonization issues, it now seemed highly likely that several of those issues would outlast the Decade, a delegate said, suggesting that a third International Decade needed to be considered. In the remainder of the Second Decade and possibly beyond, the international community must be guided by the political options available to the Non-Self-Governing Territories: free association with other independent States, full integration with political rights, or independence.
That proposal was supported by several other speakers, with one participant agreeing that it was important “to think about a third and possibly fourth and fifth International Decade”, until all Non-Self-Governing Territories had attained self-determination. He also strongly recommended a more “aggressive” stance on decolonization issues. Another speaker agreed that the Special Committee should not continue doing the things it had been doing in the past. By being more proactive, it could demonstrate that it was “alive and kicking”.
Another speaker said that efforts to promote education and information while raising sensitivity to decolonization values needed to be strengthened by local authorities in the Territories, in partnership with administering Powers and the international community. That would promote maturity and movement towards “appropriation of their own destiny”. In that connection, the Special Committee should promote dialogue among the Non-Self-Governing Territories, the administering Powers and the international community at large. After two International Decades, the time had come to establish a mechanism for dialogue with administering Powers to facilitate the decolonization process. Such an approach should be explored during a Third Decade.
A participant said he wished to see improved assistance to Non-Self-Governing Territories through results-oriented activities, in which all United Nations institutions could play a major role. In addition to efforts to strengthen support to Non-Self-Governing Territories, assistance was needed to enhance the participation of women in the decolonization process, another speaker stressed.
Caribbean Regional Seminar on Implementation of Second International Decade for Eradication of Colonialism Opens in Saint Kitts and Nevis
13 May 2009 General AssemblyGA/COL/3187 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
CARIBBEAN REGIONAL SEMINAR ON IMPLEMENTATION OF SECOND INTERNATIONAL DECADE
FOR ERADICATION OF COLONIALISM OPENS IN SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS
Secretary-General Urges Joint Efforts to Complete Decolonization Process
(Received from a UN Information Officer.)
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS, 12 May -- “As we approach the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, I urge you to continue working together to find solutions for the completion of the decolonization process, with the aim of de-listing additional Territories,” United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a message to the Caribbean Regional Seminar on the Implementation of the Decade, which opened in Saint Kitts and Nevis today.
The three-day event was organized by the General Assembly’s Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization (formally known as the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), in cooperation with the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis.
The Secretary-General, in a message delivered by Michael M. Streitz, Senior Political Affairs Officer, Decolonization Unit, Department of Political Affairs, commended the Special Committee for deciding to look at the theme of “Challenges and Opportunities in the Process of Decolonization in Today’s World”, citing the global economic crisis and climate change among today’s threats to the Territories’ economies.
“The right to self-determination must be taken into proper account as we explore how to accelerate the decolonization process for the remaining 16 Territories under the Committee’s purview,” he continued, also commenting on the need for close cooperation between the Non-Self-Governing Territories, the Administering Powers and the Special Committee. The interests of the Territories’ peoples must be at the heart of efforts to discharge the Special Committee’s mandate.
He said he counted on the Administering Powers to discharge their obligations in a manner that promoted the well-being of the inhabitants of the Territories within their responsibility. The United Nations system would continue to offer assistance to the Non-Self-Governing Territories as appropriate, in areas such as economic and social development, environmental sustainability, health care, and good governance.
Opening the Seminar, Chairman of the Special Committee, R.M. Marty M. Natalegawa ( Indonesia) pointed to the strong symbolic significance of the event, which was being held in the month during which the Special Committee observed the week of solidarity with the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories. He also stressed the role of the Seminar as the forum where views could be exchanged in an informal and interactive manner. At the end of the Second Decade, the event had a further fundamental importance for the Special Committee to seek fresh and innovative ideas and recommendations to implement the mandate entrusted to it by the Assembly.
Chosen as a logical follow-up to last year’s Pacific Seminar in Indonesia, the theme of challenges and opportunities in the process of decolonization bore an important message regarding the need to contemplate how to meet contemporary challenges, consistent with the United Nations and Committee of 24 core principles and resolutions on decolonization, he said. In addition to taking a closer look at the decolonization process in the Caribbean, the Seminar aimed to seek ways to enhance the Special Committee’s relevance to the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, within the dynamics of a changing world.
He said he looked forward to hearing the participants’ views on how current global challenges, such as climate change and the global economic and food crises, might affect the path towards decolonization. The Seminar also sought to explore new opportunities in connection with improved access to education and information technology, as well as improved understanding of constitutional rights.
Welcoming the participants on behalf of the host country, Astona Browne, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of National Security, Immigration and Foreign Affairs of Saint Kitts and Nevis, said that the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) continued to regard the decolonization process of the remaining Territories as fundamental to regional integration. Indeed, seven of the remaining 16 listed Non-Self-Governing Territories were in the Caribbean. CARICOM had endeavoured to include them in its regional institutions, such as the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), the Caribbean Development Bank and the United Nations Caribbean Development and Co-operation Committee. A number of Territories also enjoyed formal status with several United Nations bodies. The Territories’ continued integration in regional and international institutions served to further inform their decision on self-determination.
She also mentioned internal reforms in several Caribbean Non-Self-Governing Territories, which had sought to modernize aspects of their respective dependency arrangements, although those reforms were not intended to bring the dependency status to an end. Thus, the attainment of full self-determination for those Territories would remain in sharp focus. Some held the view that the issue of implementation remained the “Achilles heel” of the decolonization process, especially in light of the Caribbean-inspired Plan of Implementation of the Decolonization Mandate, which had been endorsed by the Assembly in 2006, but had not been fully operationalized. She had no doubt that expert analyses and robust work plans, in addition to events like the Seminar, would guide the work at hand and ultimately produce the desired outcome.
Saint Kitts and Nevis, along with its Caribbean colleagues, continued to monitor the situation in the Turks and Caicos Islands with much interest, she added. The CARICOM position on that matter called for “deeper reflection by all involved in order to arrive at a solution that will minimize constitutional disruption”. Therefore, the regional Seminar in Saint Kitts and Nevis should be regarded as a mechanism to devise recommendations on the way forward to ensure that the right to self-determination was realized by the people of all the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories, so that their people could achieve full political equality consistent with recognized international standards.
In his keynote address, Mr. Natalegawa focused on the dynamics of today’s changing world, means of strengthening cooperation with Administering Powers, and the role of the Special Committee in facilitating enhanced outreach to the people of Non-Self-Governing Territories, as well as their participation in the United Nations decolonization process.
Two meetings that followed the opening session focused on an issue of particular relevance to the region -- the challenges and opportunities in the process of decolonization of the Caribbean Non-Self-Governing Territories, which included Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands.
Statement by Chairman
In his keynote address, Special Committee Chairman Mr. NATALEGAWA ( Indonesia) reiterated the need to approach each case of decolonization with an open mind, to build on the available options and to bring about a pragmatic, results-oriented evolution of positions to help move the decolonization process forward. However, it was not for the Special Committee alone to pursue that approach; it required active involvement of all stakeholders, particularly the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and the meaningful cooperation of the Administering Powers. For its part, the Special Committee reaffirmed its commitment to genuine and constructive dialogue with all stakeholders, including the Administering Powers.
The Special Committee’s efforts to speed up the process of decolonization included holding regional seminars; commissioning publications and information material; analysis of the situation concerning each Non-Self-Governing Territory; and recommendations to the international community in annual decisions. “While it may be true that some of our deliberations in the past years could have been more in-depth, some working papers more illuminating, and some resolutions more action-oriented, I believe it is still fair to say that the Special Committee has nevertheless squarely succeeded in keeping decolonization on the international agenda,” he said. “And yet, we still have to find a way to de-list the next Non-Self-Governing Territory.”
Today’s challenges required timely and tangible support for those in need, he continued. The issues that affected many of the Non-Self-Governing Territories included the turmoil in financial markets and institutions; growing unemployment and reduced prosperity as a result of economic recession; food and energy security; access to external trade; good governance; population growth; climate change and environmental degradation; and potential health crises. In the face of a changing world, the Special Committee should examine how it could play a more supportive role for the benefit of the peoples of the Territories, on a case-by-case basis and in line with its mandate. It needed to aim at encouraging enhanced capacity for self-governance, which would help usher in decolonization.
He also emphasized the role of various components of the United Nations system, as well as regional and international entities. Annual reports of United Nations specialized agencies, as well as the Special Committee’s informational outreach, including through the United Nations website on decolonization, could be informative and helpful. United Nations Regional Commissions, such as the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), as well as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), could provide or facilitate concrete technical cooperation projects in support of Non-Self-Governing Territories’ sustainable development. In that connection, he recalled that last year the Cayman Islands had become a new associate member of ECLAC, joining the other five Non-Self-Governing Territories from the Caribbean.
Continuing, he cited positive developments in Tokelau as a clear example of how the Special Committee’s strong partnership with the people of the Territory and New Zealand as the Administering Power was beneficial for all parties. It allowed the Special Committee to objectively assess the situation on the ground. In turn, the Special Committee could provide the wider United Nations membership with well-informed recommendations in support of Tokelau’s decolonization process, at a pace that its people were comfortable with.
In other Territories, overall progress during the Second Decade had been rather limited, owing in part to limited cooperation by the Administering Powers, he said. As exemplified by the case of Tokelau and New Zealand, enhanced cooperation would benefit not only the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories and the Special Committee, but the Administering Powers themselves. He hoped that sooner rather than later all Administering Powers would seek to fulfil their Charter obligations and involve themselves actively in facilitating decolonization. The Special Committee would continue its informal dialogue with the Administering Powers to discuss how best to advance de-listing. It encouraged strengthened dialogue between Administering Powers and territorial Governments, particularly to address dynamics in a Territory’s internal governance. In that context, and with regard to developments in the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Special Committee would encourage the territorial Government and the Administering Power to work together to find a satisfactory solution.
Sharing some findings of this year’s working papers, which had been prepared by the Secretariat, he said opportunities remained for the parties concerned to build on the completed or ongoing internal constitutional review in several United Kingdom- and United States-administered Territories, or to build on the Nouméa Accord process in New Caledonia, where France was the Administering Power. For example, with regard to the British Virgin Islands, there was a sense that after the successful conclusion of internal constitutional modernization, the Territory might be considered a suitable case for de-listing. After years of constitution-related discussions, the key stakeholders, civil society and the population at large might be sufficiently sensitized and informed about relevant self-determination issues.
Internal constitutional reviews in various Non-Self-Governing Territories often raised status-related questions, he said. The Special Committee continued to observe closely those developments, including in United States-administered American Samoa and the United States Virgin Islands. In due course, internal constitutional modernization was also expected to be completed in Anguilla,Cayman Islands, andMontserrat, which were administered by the United Kingdom and had been actively considering constitutional and status-related issues for some time. In any case, the Special Committee would need to be assured that the people concerned were, in fact, on a path to self-determination. The international community had to be satisfied that the people of the Territories were in a position to express their will in a free and unequivocal manner.
Having outlined the Special Committee’s work to facilitate outreach to the peoples of the Territories, he said that with growing availability of information in electronic form around the world, including the results of the Committee of 24’s work, it was hard to make a convincing case that there existed a so-called “information deficit” on the subject of decolonization and self-determination among Non-Self-Governing Territories. “Our task now is to explore new and innovative means that can complement our traditional efforts,” he said, adding, “Our common quest is to make the work of the Special Committee more relevant to the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories under its purview”.
Challenges and Opportunities in Decolonization Process in the Caribbean
Opening the discussion, LOLITA DAVIS-RICHARDSON, Representative of the Chief Minister of Anguilla, said that the international community seemed to have come to the conclusion that remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories had no desire for decolonization. In the case of Anguilla, that was certainly not correct. Another challenge was that the Administering Power, the United Kingdom, was attempting to portray constitutional reviews in the Territories it administered as initiatives for decolonization. She described the role of the British-appointed Attorney-General in Anguilla and spoke about what she saw as the Administering Power’s disregard for the Territory’s identity and culture. For instance, abortion had been legalized without any discussion with the people of Anguilla; there was no law commission; the education system had been systematically destroyed; and there were hardly any recreational facilities for the young people. Foreigners were brought in and given jobs, including in the tourism industry. Due to the lack of education and training, there were indications that unemployed young Anguillans were turning to such undesirable behaviours as drugs and alcohol.
Brought to Anguilla as slaves, the people of the island had once been regarded as property, and in the mind of colonial administrators that notion seemed hard to shake off, she continued. Having decided that Anguilla’s Constitution needed to be modernized, the United Kingdom wanted to dictate its terms. However, the people of the Territory had the right to select their constitutional status, and colonialism was no longer acceptable. Anguillans demanded the right to constitutionally advance to full internal self-government in a status of association with another independent country.
WALTON BROWN, JR., Representative of the Premier of Bermuda, said that a full measure of self-determination had not been achieved in Bermuda. As a result of a boycott, the outcome of the 1995 referendum could not be considered a legitimate decision by the people of the Territory. A set of criteria needed to be in place prior to making a decision on de-listing, including the need for an explicit decision by the Territory for a particular constitutional option, as well as the requirement for the population of an administered Territory to have full political rights. Since 1999, there had been a devolution of power in the Overseas Territories, including in Bermuda, back to the Administering Power. The Government of the United Kingdom should adhere to its obligations under the United Nations Charter to move the colonies to self-government.
He also had concerns regarding the Territories’ ability to make a free decision regarding the Constitution. There had been some attempts by the United Kingdom to insist on the superiority of a referendum, but the matter was for the people of Bermuda to decide. On the granting of full British citizenship to all people of the Overseas Territories, he said that that decision was an extension of a privilege to individuals. It did not alter the constitutional relationship between the Administering Power and the Territory.
He also spoke about the challenges to Bermuda’s financial services sector, where the United Kingdom sought to ensure adherence to international standards. “We manage our affairs very well, we have a track record of success and prudence in the management of our financial services sector,” he said, expressing concern that the United Kingdom sought to assert its power in that area. The reference to colonies had changed over the years to dependent Territories and later to Overseas Territories. However, the change in the name did not change the relationship of dominance and subordination. He asked the Special Committee to be actively engaged with Non-Self-Governing Territories and Administering Powers to find a genuine decision on self-government.
“Not one man, not one woman, not one child of the British Virgin Islands wants to live in a country that is a colony,” said VERNON MALONE, Representative of the Premier of the British Virgin Islands. However, before seeking to pursue the goal of independence, the main focus should be on achieving a sound economy. He shared the previous speaker’s concern on the issue of citizenship and believed that the United Kingdom Government needed to look at some other serious issues, as well. For instance, an “at-large” system had been introduced in the British Virgin Islands some years ago, under which each voter would have four “at large” votes in addition to their constituency vote. However, there had been no effort by the United Kingdom to explain how the system would work and how it should operate in tandem with the district system.
Another area of grave concern to his Government and people related to the fact that political appointments, dismissals, promotion and discipline were in the hands of the Governor, he continued. “What happens if you have a Governor who is not cooperating with elected members?” he asked. The situation made it difficult for the elected members to carry out their responsibilities to the people. Serious consideration should be given to addressing that issue.
LOWELL LEWIS, Chief Minister of Montserrat, related the Territory’s unique experience as the only non-independent full founder member of CARICOM and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, and said that Montserrat expected the United Kingdom to fulfil its responsibility to ensure good governance in its Territories, while preparing them for eventual self-determination. It was with that in mind that Montserrat was working to enact legislation for integrity in public life and modernizing its Constitution. It would be up to the people of Montserrat to decide when to make the next step, but some believed that it was natural for the people to aspire to political maturity and administrative capacity to interact with their regional partners in an equal way. Montserrat should now embark on a programme and timetable to achieve that by 2015.
The global financial crisis had “exposed vulnerable developing countries and colonies to the consequences of inappropriate financial practices in the mother countries and colonial homelands,” he said. There was a need for a more equitable share of the stimulus and rescue packages to developing countries and colonies. He also insisted on Montserrat’s fundamental right to be governed “by those we elect”. Montserrat had no desire to be removed from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories until it became self-governing.
He also recalled his previous recommendation that the United Nations find means of enforcing all of its requirements and that the remaining colonies be given the option of placing themselves under the care of the United Nations until they could become fully self-governing States. Perhaps the first step should be the transfer of administration of European Overseas Territories that wished to participate, to a European Union Overseas Territories department, which could become the nucleus of a United Nations Territories unit. Territories should also be assisted in establishing programmes for achieving political maturity, administrative capacity and economic sustainability, where possible, through regional integration. Where such assistance was not forthcoming from the United Kingdom, islands like Montserrat should be given an opportunity to seek direct assistance from the United Nations to move into a fully self-governing State. The process of constitutional modernization must continue, preferably retaining the special relationships that currently existed between Administering Powers and their previous colonies. Lastly, it would be necessary to extend the Special Committee’s mandate in connection with the Decade, in order that the fundamental rights of the peoples of Non-Self Governing Territories were respected.
GALMO WILLIAMS, Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, said that having resigned as Minister of Home Affairs, he had been elected the new Leader of the Progressive National Party (PNP) in February. He had taken the oath as the Premier following the resignation of Michael Misick on 25 March. The fact that the people of Turks and Caicos had not only had the audacity to remove a popular, politically savvy Premier, but also to reject a highly regarded, but politically damaged Deputy Premier, was evidence of an intention to insist upon the rule of law. In the process of decolonization, it was important to address the economic, political and social needs. It was also important to empower the people, particularly at a time of global economic meltdown. In that connection, he stressed the importance of generating incomes, which would allow people to retain their control over development, thereby giving them an important voice in the decolonization process. Regionally, the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) had been a key partner to countries who sought to advance their people economically, including his own.
Continuing, he called the United Kingdom’s recent order to suspend the Constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands “completely Draconian”. One of the obligations and responsibilities of the British Government was to prepare its colonies for eventual independence, allowing a nation and its people to determine its own destiny. A severe blow had been dealt to achieving that goal. The United Kingdom had not consulted the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands on the proposed suspension of the Constitution, and he called on the Special Committee to urge the Administering Power to initiate a referendum or a general poll on the wishes of the people in that regard. The democratically-elected Government should not be displaced and the will of the people should not be silenced.
His Government had recently passed legislation on the Integrity Commission, which was seeking to strengthen accountability and transparency, not only of elected officials, but also of those at senior levels in the civil service, he said. With the support of the United Nations, the Government must also work to ensure that elections continued to be free and fair. His Government was proud of its efforts to improve education and health care, which it saw as progress towards full self-governance. His country might be challenged in its current state, but he called upon the participants to make representations on behalf of the Turks and Caicos Islands and its people. “We have a democracy that is still alive and a Government that is capable of running the affairs of the country,” he said.
JESSICA BROWN, Professor of the University of the West Indies, Jamaica, said that Anguilla and Monserrat experienced all the challenges encountered by small island States. It was not yet clear how the pressures of globalization and domestic tensions would evolve. What was clear was that there had been considerable evolution in the discussions aimed at modifying existing constitutions and extending the powers of local authorities. The debate had been accompanied by increased awareness of decolonization issues. Anguilla and Montserrat had an opportunity to observe the advantages and disadvantages of the new arrangements in other Territories. The process required flexibility from all the parties involved. The support of the international community was crucial in that regard. She also underlined the importance of education, which was needed for achieving an informed consensus. Greater emphasis in the constitutional process should be given to issues of transparency, accountability and mechanisms to prevent corruption.
Regional cooperation offered great opportunities to Anguilla and Montserrat, she continued. In that connection, the question of self-determination should become a standing agenda item in CARICOM’s political discussions. She also emphasized the important role of the United Nations in assisting the development of Non-Self-Governing Territories, reviewed Anguilla and Montserrat’s participation in global multilateral agencies, including UNDP, ECLAC and Caribbean Development Cooperation Committee (CDCC), and explored how the profile of Anguilla and Montserrat could be enhanced in institutions concerned with global financial regulation, labour and migration. International civil society had a key role to play. The Special Committee opened new opportunities for Non-Self-Governing Territories to be recognized by the international community, and its seminars were an important venue for communication and exchange of views.
Another expert, CARLYLE CORBIN, spoke about the United States Virgin Islands’ constitutional convention exercise, saying that it had not been sufficient to bring about a full measure of self-governance in that Territory. In that connection, he examined a number of initiatives within the framework of the Second International Decade, where internal reforms had been undertaken in the Non-Self-Governing Territories. He also compared the constitutional review in the United States- and United Kingdom-administered Territories. In many cases, the parameters of the constitutional review were restricted to reforming the present arrangement, without radically changing it. He argued against the efforts to legitimize “colonialism by consent”, which remained a form of colonialism. Some Administering Powers sought to promote the existing dependency arrangement as legitimate self-government, although those arrangements fell far short of the requirements for political legitimacy.
Considering the way forward, he said that the Special Committee needed to look at how it would proceed insofar as relations between the United Kingdom, the United States and the Territories they administered were concerned. He also stressed the importance of regional organizations, including CARICOM, which had produced recommendations on the need to engage in the constitutional process in the Non-Self-Governing Territories. That had been done by such United Nations bodies as the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization). Some other recommendations related to the establishment of expert groups and mechanisms to implement the use of special measures to examine the situation on the ground. A case-by-case analysis should be implemented in that regard.
SOPHIA HARRIS of the Cayman Islands said that a constitutional reform reflecting the wishes of the people must be totally open and transparent. However, in the Cayman Islands, there was continued lack of structured and unbiased education and information, which would be required for the public to make an informed decision about the future of a Territory. She highlighted the failure of the Administering Power, the United Kingdom, to educate the people of the Territory, and emphasized the need to create a level playing field between the Administering Power and the people of the Non-Self-Governing Territory to enable a constitution that met the needs and desires of the islands’ people.
The public had been kept in the dark regarding its own constitutional process, and it was hard to know exactly what had happened during the secret negotiations on the issue, she said. A referendum was scheduled for later in May, she noted, recalling that a poll last March had shown that more than 60 per cent of the population felt that they had not been informed, or at least not sufficiently informed, about the new Constitution. In another poll, that figure had reached 80 per cent. The controversial constitutional reform process in the Cayman Islands pointed to the need to set minimum criteria for education before self-determination could be accomplished. That was a requirement for conducting a referendum, which remained the only fair means of determining the wishes of the Territory’s people. However, its timetable was unfortunate.
LANA HOYOUNG, of the Anguilla National Council of Women, focused on the role of women in the decolonization process, saying that research and “the myriad of contemporary global issues” had established that women’s rights were an integral part of any human rights dialogue. The role of women in society was critical to establishing social justice, equality, good governance and genuine democracy, and to building modern nations through the process of self-determination. Women in Anguilla spoke for the rights of the Territory, remaining vigilant in their quest for the attainment of self-governance, legal reform and education. Women of Anguilla believed that self-determination was a slow process, which should not end at the conclusion of a certain decade, because “the war for self-determination” was continuing in many Non-Self-Governing Territories.
As the floor was opened for comments and questions, the participants expressed great interest in the situation on the ground in the Caribbean Non-Self-Governing Territories and emphasized the Special Committee’s role in promoting the remaining Territories’ self-determination. In that connection, one participant pointed to the need to share the lessons learned from successful decolonization stories. Another speaker said that the global financial crisis had heightened the need to seriously address the requirements of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Pointing to the serious nature of the Territories’ concerns, several participants advocated the extension of the Special Committee’s mandate in connection with the Decolonization Decade. One speaker countered that the mandate had been in place before the Decade, and while its activities had been modified and rearranged in connection with the Decade, that mandate had certainly not disappeared.
“What we hear is that there is no progress in moving towards a self-governing status”, another participant said. The Territories’ representatives had identified the main challenges they faced. Now, time had come to regain the momentum of the decolonization process. In that connection, he highlighted the need for the United Nations to strengthen its efforts to sensitize Administering Powers regarding their obligation to promote self-determination. It was also necessary to create a political framework for multilateral discussions between the Special Committee, Administering Powers and Non-Self-Governing Territories. The United Nations must seek to promote negotiations and consolidate confidence between the parties in order to build strong partnerships between Administering Powers and the Territories.
”The more I hear today, the more interested I become,” a speaker said, referring to the fact that the United Kingdom was asking its Overseas Territories to implement a new constitution. He was worried that they would be pressurized into a constitution that they did not have a full opportunity to discuss. He also emphasized the Territories’ desire to “financially stand on their own feet”.
Some speakers mentioned the impact of natural disasters, such as hurricanes and volcanic eruptions, on the economies of small islands, including Non-Self-Governing Territories. Montserrat, following the volcanic eruptions, required special assistance, both from the United Kingdom and the international community at large, that Territory’s representative said. Also discussed was the impact of the financial crisis on the tourism sector and off-shore finance, which were of great importance for many small Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Among other issues addressed in the debate was migration in the Caribbean, as well as related issues of citizenship, cultural identity, nationality and voting rights in referendums on self-determination. While noting the climate change and economic, food and energy crises as challenges that could seriously affect the Caribbean Territories, participants highlighted regional integration, participation in multilateral bodies and improved access to information among the opportunities to meet those challenges.
One speaker said, however, that the level of dissemination of information on decolonization was still lacking. Some small Territories found it difficult to access information at the United Nations Information Centre, for example. While regional organizations could play an important role in that regard, a special approach to disseminating information to Non-Self-Governing Territories was required.
Cardiff, United Kingdom - Leaders of the main Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh nationalist parties on Monday declared their right to choose whether to remain in the UK or not at a rare meeting in the Welsh capital Cardiff.
All three parties -- the Scottish National Party (SNP), Plaid Cymru in Wales and the pro-Irish unity Sinn Fein -- want to break away from the UK.
The meeting came just days after US President Donald Trump waded in, saying he would back a united Ireland, which Northern Ireland's Michelle O'Neill said showed "the unity debate is very much alive".
"Our nations have the right to self-determination. No Westminster government (the UK government) has the right to block democracy or undermine the principle that our people will decide their own future," a memorandum of understanding stated.
SNP leader John Swinney, Rhun ap Iorwerth, leader of Plaid Cymru in Wales and Mary Lou McDonald and O'Neill, leader and deputy leader of pro-Irish unity Sinn Fein met in their capacity as party leaders, rather than as officials in their respective governments.
O'Neill is also Northern Ireland's first minister while Iorwerth and Swinney are first ministers of their respective nations.
Announcing the agreement, Swinney said the three parties were "absolutely united by that principle of self-determination", adding that this "lies at the heart of the agreement that we have signed today".
"For the first time ever, people across these islands have first ministers in Scotland, in Wales and in the North of Ireland who are all committed to independence from the United Kingdom," the memorandum of understanding said.
"The future of our nations belongs in the European Union."
The independence parties are the biggest in both the Scottish and Welsh parliaments for the first time since devolution measures began in 1999. Sinn Fein has been the biggest party in Northern Ireland's assembly since 2022.
The regional parliaments have key powers on health, education, housing, transport and environment matters, along with some tax gathering.
The Constitutional Court has ruled that the KwaZulu-Natal government can remove a traditional leader from official recognition if the correct legal process is followed.
The case involved iNkosi Bhekizizwe Nivard Luthuli, who lost his position as a recognised traditional leader after a misconduct investigation. His royal family argued that only the family had the power to remove him.
But the Constitutional Court disagreed. It said the government can investigate misconduct and remove a traditional leader’s official recognition, while still respecting the role of the royal family and customary law.
“Under the leadership of His Excellency President Emmerson Dambudzo Mangagwa, Zimbabwe continues to build, grow, and transform.
From infrastructure development, energy, mining, agriculture, and industrialisation, to job creation and investment, the Second Republic is delivering results that matter to every household. Vision 2030 is not just a slogan - it’s a roadmap to a prosperous, empowered, and middle-income Zimbabwe. Brick by brick, project by project, we are getting there.
To get content containing either thought or leadership enter:
To get content containing both thought and leadership enter:
To get content containing the expression thought leadership enter:
You can enter several keywords and you can refine them whenever you want. Our suggestion engine uses more signals but entering a few keywords here will rapidly give you great content to curate.
Your new post is loading...
