A Brief History of U.S.
Interventions:
1945 to the Present
by William Blum
Z magazine , June 1999
All Posts (6512)
Sort by
A Brief History of U.S.
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power.
This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.
The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.
Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.
The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.
Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.
In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.
President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.
In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.
Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.
A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.
It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans.
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.
What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.
U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.
At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style.
Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.
Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.
George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it.
Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.
Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.
Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price.
Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.
El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.
The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers, and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend-because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"-that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages.
The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim.
William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II.
*Warning : Explicit Language*
U.N. Secretary-General Declares Decolonisation ‘Incomplete’United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has declared that “the monumental task (of decolonisation) is as yet complete.” In a message read on his behalf to a Pacific intergovernmental meeting of the Special Committee on Decolonisation which convened in Bandung, Indonesia from 15th to 17th May, the Secretary-General said that “colonialism has no place in today’s world,” and “urge(d) all administering powers to actively engage with the United Nations in discharging the U.N. mandate on decolonisation.” The Secretary General’s message went on to “encourage all parties to continue working together to complete the decolonisation process in every one of the remaining 16 non self-governing territories.”As the statement from the Secretary-General was being read, it was reported that a group of students from West Papua were demonstrating outside the conference site in favour of the re-inscription of that territory on United Nations List of Non Self-Governing Territories.Regional Meetings on DecolonisationThe annual intergovernmental meetings on decolonisation are held by the Special Committee on Decolonisation during alternating years in United Nations member countries in the Caribbean and Pacific regions, respectively. The sessions are funded through the UN regular budget and attended by a representative portion of UN member states of the Special Committee as chosen by the various regional groups. Participants also include representatives from some of the 16 territorial governments formally listed by the UN as non self-governing, along with several non-governmental organisations. Others are invited in their individual capacity, as identified by the U.N. Secretariat.In the 1990s, representative groups from territories not on the U.N. list were permitted to observe the proceedings without directly participating. In recent years, however, this practice was ended at the behest of some administering powers who did not want any recognition of the colonial nature of territories under their administration. A number of these territories had been prematurely removed from the UN list in the past.The rather unusual rules of procedure for these regional meetings provide that only the UN member states of the Special Committee are permitted to serve on the Drafting Committee which agrees the final report of the meeting based on the text provided by the Secretariat. In past conferences, this draft text has often omitted certain views considered adverse to the position of some member states. In some cases, recommendations have been included in the report on issues that were never discussed at the meeting. The report is ultimately adopted by the Special Committee at UN Headquarters where the text is discussed, and often further amended by UN member states who may or may not have attended the regional meeting.These meetings were originally conceived as part of the Plan of Action (POA) of the First International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (1991-2000) adopted by the UN General Assembly. The sessions were meant as a good faith effort to bring all of the parties to the table for frank and open discussions aimed at accelerating the decolonisation process. The meetings were also an activity contained in the POA of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, which was identical to the POA of the first International Decade, because of the limited implementation of the earlier recommendations.An assessment on the POA of the First International Decade, and a mid-term review of the Second International Decade were presented by an international expert at previous regional meetings of the Special Committee. These assessments were published by the journal Overseas Territories Report, and are available upon request to: overseasreview@yahoo.com.The meeting venue of Bandung was the site of the formation of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) which served to intensify and organise the global effort to end colonialism in most of Africa, and Asia, and major parts of the Caribbean and Pacific. Amid the lack of implementation of UN General Assembly decolonisation resolutions, it was hoped that the historical importance of the venue would serve to stimulate an otherwise dormant UN system to undertake methods to re-start a “stalled” decolonisation process, as it has been characterised by the UN Office of International Oversight Services (OIOS).Concerns have been expressed, however, that the “repetition of process,” which characterises the contemporary UN treatment of the matter, would contribute to UN “decolonisation fatigue” leading to what many fear as an attempt to legitimise the present colonial arrangements, for expediency. The aim of this approach is said to be the ultimate removal of the territories from the UN list – not by achieving a full measure of self-government, but rather by changing the definition of self-government. Sadly, the UN continues to skillfully avoid undertaking the case-by-case review process for each territory – a mechanism annually adopted by the UN General Assembly - to assess the dynamics of the present colonial arrangements in each territory.Amid the limitations, some participants in past regional decolonisation sessions have succeeded in inserting some provisions that reflect contemporary decolonisation concerns in the meeting report. The 2006 Pacific Decolonisation Meeting had relevant provisions to this effect:• As long as administering powers exercise unilateral authority to make laws and other regulations affecting the Non Self-Governing Territories without their consent, pursuant to such methods as legislation, orders in council and other methods, a territory should not be considered self-governing.• There is no alternative to the principle of self-determination which is also a fundamental human right.• The inalienable rights of the people of the Non Self-Governing Territories must be guaranteed by the United Nations and the Special Committee in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, and Resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960.• The UN should develop a programme to disseminate information with the aim of raising public awareness in the territories in order to heighten people’s understanding of the legitimate political status options available to them in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions, including the 1960 (Decolonisation) Declaration.• All Non Self-Governing Territories should be given access to relevant United Nations programmes in the economic and social sphere, including those emanating from the plans of action of the major summits and conferences, in furtherance of capacity-building and consistent with the necessary preparation for the attainment of as full measure of full internal self-government.Some of this language is later contained in the General Assembly resolutions. The 2007 Caribbean Decolonisation meeting for the Caribbean held in Grenada included similar provisions, identical in most cases with 2006 (and earlier). There were also a few new “qualifying” considerations which appear to have been inserted to support attempts at the legitimisation of “colonialism by consent,” or “voluntary colonialism.” These qualifiers included:• Reference to the “view of some meeting participants on the need to consider the adoption of new thinking on decolonisation within the context of the current global realities.”• Reference to what was described as “the array of legitimate transitions to self-determination, provided that the people of a territory have the opportunity to make a full and informed choice.”This language is vague enough to be rendered meaningless, but there is no doubt as to the intention of its inclusion. It will be interesting to see whether the recommendations from the 2008 seminar will also contain these references, or whether the spirit of Bandung will generate recognition of the significance of their negative implications. A full analysis of the recommendations of the Bandung decolonisation meeting is forthcoming upon its conclusion.Posted by Overseas Review at 9:05 AM 0 comments Links to this post11 May 2008U.N. Indigenous Forum Adopts Decolonisation AgendaThe United Nations (U.N.) Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) at its Seventh Session held in New York ended its two-week session on 2nd May 2008 with the adoption of recommendations to implement the U.N.’s dormant decolonisation agenda. These recommendations were based on the conclusions of the half-day discussion on the Pacific region where a host of non-governmental organisations expressed concerns for the lack of implementation of the United Nations decolonisation mandate, and offered solutions to jump-start the process.Relevant Recommendations on Decolonisation adopted at the Seventh Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.• The Permanent Forum recommends that an expert seminar be held, without financial implications, and invites the participation of the Committee on the Elimination of racial Discrimination and the Special Committee on Decolonisation to examine the impact of the United Nations decolonisation process on indigenous peoples of the non self-governing territories which are now or have been listed on the United Nations list of Non Self-Governing Territories. The Permanent Forum requests that independent experts and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples be invited to participate in the seminar. Furthermore, the Forum requests that indigenous peoples under non self-governing territories status also be invited.• The Permanent Forum expresses its concern for the human rights of indigenous peoples in the non self-governing territories in the Pacific region and calls on the Human Rights Council to designate a Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Indigenous Peoples of those Territories.• The Permanent Forum invites the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples to examine and report on the situation of the human rights of indigenous peoples in non self-governing territories of the Pacific region and urges relevant States to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur for that purpose.• The Permanent Forum invites the Chairman of the Special Committee (on Decolonisation) to report on the decolonisation process within the Pacific region to the Permanent Forum at its eighth session in 2009.The momentum of the successful Pacific initiative leading to the adoption of the Permanent Forum recommendations was given great impetus following the adoption by the by the United Nations General Assembly on 13th December 2007 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 3 of the Declaration confirmed that “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination (and) by virtue of that right freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Article 4 of the Declaration indicates that in exercising this right, indigenous peoples “have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters related to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.”Pacific PositionAn extensive paper presented to the Seventh Session of the Forum by Mililani Trask, Director of the Indigenous World Association and a coalition of Pacific indigenous organisations, expressed the dilemma faced by indigenous peoples over United Nations reluctance to enact the measures its General Assembly had adopted for decades in the areas of self-determination and decolonisation. The paper, which was also endorsed by a number of Caribbean indigenous organisations, was published in its entirety in the May edition Overseas Territories Report (OTR), and can be obtained from OTR at overseasreview@yahoo.com.In her statement, Director Trask pointed out that ‘international law concedes that the peoples of the non self-governing territories are denied the most important of all human rights, the right of self-governance,” and that (U.N. member) “states were to assist these peoples in attaining a full measure of self-government.” She recalled that since the Cold War ended, only on non self-governing territory (Timor Leste) had achieved this full measure of self-government, and that a number of territories “remain in a state of political disenfranchisement as colonies of the Administering States.” In this connection, Trask listed Guam and American Samoa under United States administration, Kanaki – New Caledonia under French jurisdiction, Pitcairn under United Kingdom control, and Tokelau under New Zealand supervision as indications of the existing colonial arrangements formally recognised by the United Nations. Also recognised by the U.N. are the Caribbean colonial territories including the U.S. Virgin Islands under U.S. administration, and Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla under United Kingdom jurisdiction.Trask also made reference to territories such as French Occupied Polynesia, Easter Island Hawaii and Alaska which had been removed from UN list of non self-governing territories, but whose situation nevertheless had been raised both in the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and in the Human Rights Council. She made specific reference to the failure of the U.N. Decolonisation Committee to respond to requests from the CERD for information related to racism in the territories “for 19 consecutive years,” and commented that “it appears that we are dealing with a situation of institutionalized racism.”The Pacific statement went on to recount the different U.N. bodies which have ignored the legislative mandate from the General Assembly on decolonisation including the Special Committee on Decolonisation, various specialised agencies and technical organs, and other U.N. bodies. A plan of implementation to this effect had even been endorsed repeatedly by the U.N. General Assembly, but its implementation has been ignored by the wider U.N. system, giving substance to the adage that “all U.N. resolutions are equal, but some resolutions are more equal than others.” The Pacific statement recalled that “for ten years, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) had repeatedly requested that the (U.N.) Secretariat of the Special Committee produce reports related to the implementation of the U.N. decolonisation resolutions,” pursuant to repeated resolutions of the General Assembly. The statement went on to recount in detail the many failures of the U.N. system to live up to its international obligations.The Pacific statement also brought to the attention of the meeting that the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) had adopted in 2004 a recommendation which “request(ed) the Special Rapporteur on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples (to) undertake a study on the United Nations decolonisation process and the Special Committee on Decolonisation to assess its historical and current impact on the human rights of indigenous peoples of the non self-governing territories.”The 2004 recommendation of the Permanent Forum also “request(ed) the U.N. Secretary-General to undertake a mid-decade review on the Second Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism to determine whether substantial progress (had) been made in achieving the goals of the Second Decade and to identify proposals for addressing obstacles in achieving (those goals).” Similar to the recommendations in the UN General Assembly resolutions, these decisions of the Permanent Forum have not been undertaken.Other statements supported the concerns expressed by Ms. Trask. Speaking on behalf of the Pacific Caucus, Malia Nobrega, a member of the Indigenous World Association, Na Koa Ikaika o ka Lahui Hawaki’i and the Waikiki Hawaiian Civic Club focused considerable attention on human rights issues. In this connection, she noted that “much of the human rights deprivations in the Pacific (loss of cultural integrity, inability to protect our ancestor’s remains, alienation from traditional lands, etc.) are inextricably linked to our international personalities as non self-governing territories (both presently and formerly listed NSGTs).”Ms. Nobrega ermphasised that “the human rights ‘situation’ in these territories is abhorrent and serves as the most powerful challenge to U.N. legitimacy.” She expressed deep concern that “the U.N. engages in ‘colonial accommodation,’ as it is well known that the Special Committee on Decolonisation remains at best lamentably ineffective and at worst an active participant in the systematic denial of the indigenous peoples of the non self-governing territories to the most basic human right of self-determination.”Kai’opua Fyfe, Director of the Koani Foundation, also addressed the Permanent Forum on behalf of the Hawai’i Caucus and Affiliated Organisations on the same matter. Director Fyfe began with emphasizing that the objective of his presentation was to “overcome the obstacles that have blocked progress in achieving the goals of the Second Decade of Eradicating Colonialism, particularly as they applied to Hawai’i Ka Pae’ Aina.” He proceeded with a chronology of events related to the history of the annexation of Hawai’i including its placement on the U.N. list of non self-governing territories in 1946, and the events which led to the removal of the territory from the U.N. list in 1959 – one year before the adoption by the U.N. General Assembly of the landmark Decolonisation Declaration. The presentation favoured the re-inscription of Hawai’i to the U.N. list of non self-governing territories. Reference was also made to U.S. Public Law 103-150 of 1993 in which the U.S. officially apologized for its 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai’i, and to the shadow report on the violation of human rights of Native Hawaiians submitted to the 86th Session of the Human Rights Committee “refuting assertions by the USA that it had fulfilled its international obligations regarding the Kingdom of Hawai’i.”Director Fyfe advised that the Human Rights Committee in its concluding observations and recommendations on the adherence to the right to self-determination under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) expressed “regret that it had not received sufficient information on the consequences on the situation of Indigenous Hawaiian Peoples for the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Hawaiian people.” He also made reference to the petition of the Koani Foundation presented to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) on the recommendation of the experts of the Human Rights Committee.Yet another statement from the Pacific was presented by Julian Aguon on behalf of the Indigenous Chomoru People’s Nation and Affiliated Indigenous Chomoru Organisations. Mr. Aguon’s presentation forces on the impact of the United States military build-up in Guam following the closing of the operations in Okinawa, Japan. Aguon argued that the “massive military expansion exacts devastating consequences on (the Chamoru people…who already suffer the signature maladies of a colonial condition.” He went further to explain that “this aggressive militarization of our homeland endangers our fundamental and inalienable right to self-determination, the exercise of which our administering power, the United States, has strategically denied us – in glaring betrayal of its international obligations under the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; UN General Assembly Resolution 1514, to name but some.”He also made reference to the fact that representatives from Guam had come to the UN Headquarters in New York “year after year, at great personal cost, appealing to the UN to follow through with its mandate,” (but after) almost thirty years of testimony, (there had been) nothing to show for it.” He went on to say that “the failure of the U.S. to honour its international obligations to Guam and her native people, the non-responsiveness of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation to our rapid deterioration and the overall non-performance of relevant US and UN Decolonisation organs and officials combine to carry our small chance of survival to its final coffin.”Focus now shifts to the implementation of the Permanent Forum recommendations.Posted by Overseas Review at 10:28 AM 0 comments Links to this post29 April 2008Indigenous Pacific Expresses Views on DecolonisationThe United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) was established by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 2000 to address a range of concerns affecting indigenous peoples in economic and social development, culture, environment, education, health and human rights. The Seventh Session of the Permanent Forum convened from 21st April to 2nd May 2008 at United Nations Headquarters in New York.A half-day session on Issues Related to Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific was held on 23rd April which focused on a number of themes including climate change and the Pacific, migration, urbanization, development and human rights. A comprehensive paper was presented by Ms. Mililani B. Trask, Director of the Indigenous World Association, on behalf of a coalition of Pacific and Caribbean indigenous organisations. The presentation addressed the present crisis stemming from the lack of implementation by the United Nations of its international obligations in decolonising the remaining non self-governing territories.It is to be recalled that the U.N. General Assembly by Resolution 62/118 of 17 December 2007 for the third consecutive year:“Request(ed) the Special Committee to collaborate with the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, within the framework of their respective mandates, with the aim of exchanging information on developments in those Non-Self-Governing Territories which are reviewed by those bodies.”No action on this resolution has thus far been taken. OTR has consistently observed, with much regret, the lack of implementation of the U.N. mandate on decolonisation. We are therefore pleased to reprint the collective views of the Pacific indigenous community, supported by organisations in the Caribbean including Puerto Rico, in the May, 2008 edition of our publication Overseas Territories Review OTR. Copies are available by contacting the editors at overseasreview@yahoo.com .Posted by Overseas Review at 12:40 PM 0 comments Links to this post27 April 2008St. Croix’s Contribution to Athletic ExcellenceFor fans of American basketball, the beginning of the National Basketball Association (NBA) playoff competition among the leading professional teams is a very special time. Only basketball at the Olympic Games is equal in significance, if not in excitement. For those of us who have played the game at the collegiate or international levels, the playoffs reinvigorate often dormant feelings associated with “the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat and the human drama of athletic competition,” as coined by the legendary television broadcaster Chris Schenkel who we used to watch on the week - old tapes of “Wide World of Sports” television programme. The tapes had to be shipped to the territory for airing, before there was cable and satellite television.Of the many professional players who began the 2007-08 NBA season, it is remarkable that two players from the island of St. Croix in the Virgin Islands form part of two of these elite playoff teams – Tim Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs and Raja Bell of the Phoenix Suns. What are the odds that one, let alone two, world class athletes would emerge from a small Caribbean island of 50,000 people? Duncan is considered by the experts as one of the top players ever to play at the professional level. His level of play is almost effortless, and his near-perfection of the fundamentals of the game is un-paralleled. For his part, Bell has emerged as one of the premier defenders in the league, and a prolific long distance shooter outside the three-point line (At this writing, he already has 21 points at halftime!).Both young men are articulate and intense, and represent the people of the Virgin Islands and the wider Caribbean with great distinction. They make all Crucians especially proud! It is too bad that their two teams are meeting in the first round of the playoffs where one will be eliminated.As the 2008 in Beijing rapidly approach, would it not have been a delight to see both of these athletes joining other Virgin Islands athletes on the US Virgin Islands National Team this summer? “Sports autonomy” provides for non self-governing territories to field their own Olympic teams without regard for the political dependency status of these territories. As a result, the US Virgin Islands basketball team has always been quite competitive on the international level, in such competitions as the Central American and Caribbean Games, and the Pan American Games, among others. The team draws its players from the many Virgin Islands student-athletes competing at the collegiate level in a number of US universities. Some have later competed professionally in Europe and elsewhere. Olympic residency rules, however, appear to restrict the participation of Duncan on the territory’s team, and he plays for the US team instead. Bell has participated on Virgin Islands international teams over the years. So, we may never witness the real Virgin Islands basketball team in Olympic competition. Too bad.It is interesting, though, that the NBA properly recognizes the international nature of the US Virgin Islands in correctly classifying these two Crucians as forming part of the international contingent of professional basketball players of the NBA. Accordingly, the US Virgin Islands flag is flown with the other flags representing the league’s “international players.” This is but another example of the international dimension of the US Virgin Islands as a non self-governing territory under international law where the ultimate political status of the territory remains unresolved. It has taken basketball to bring this objective reality to the forefront once again.Posted by Overseas Review at 2:58 PM 0 comments Links to this post15 April 2008Reflections on a Caribbean LeaderMonday, April 7 was the birthday of the second elected governor Cyril Emanuel King who passed away while in office in January of 1978. King’s distinguished career was chronicled in the excellent publication “Profiles of Outstanding Virgin Islanders,” and is required reading for those interested in Virgin Islands history. King graduated with a bachelor's degree in public administration from American University in 1951. He had been appointed in 1949 as an assistant to U.S. Senator Hubert Humphrey, and was the first person of African descent to serve in the office of a U.S. senator.King was later appointed in 1957 by the Organic Act Committee of the Virgin Islands as its deputy in Washington, D.C. to organize the lobbying effort in the U.S. Congress to gain amendments to the Virgin Islands Organic Act. In 1971, President John F. Kennedy appointed him Virgin Islands Government Secretary which was similar to the present Secretary of State position in Puerto Rico, and forerunner of the post of Lieutenant Governor in the US Virgin Islands. He was elected to the US Virgin Islands Legislature in 1972, and was subsequently elected governor for a four-year term in 1974. He served three years of what was to become his only term.As a young writer and advisor on international affairs to Governor King, I was honored to have had the opportunity to work for this most formidable leader whose dynamism, charisma and persistence dominated the political landscape of the day. Working for Governor King trained me in how to perform under pressure. In later years when I would address various United Nations organizations on behalf of the government, I would call on that discipline he instilled to successfully deal with the challenges of representing the territory in the international arena. Without a doubt, Governor King was a most formidable boss who commanded excellence of those who worked for him. In turn, we gained valuable experience which would serve us well later in our careers.Of the many experiences I had in working under Governor King, one particular instance remains vivid. It was an early September morning in 1977, around 6:30 AM or so, when my phone rang in my residence in Scott Free, St. Thomas. I had only recently relocated from St. Croix to write for the governor. On the other line was Governor King who was calling to inform me that I was to meet him in St. Croix that morning. I could heard the loud roar of the Antilles Airboat engines in the background. “Meet me in St. Croix,” Governor King said, “and don’t be late.”I didn’t know which event he was attending in St. Croix. All I knew was that I was to meet him there – on time. Quickly showering and dressing, I leaped out the front door, briefcase in hand, into my Volkswagen bug, drove quickly through the narrow Scott Free Road and down Crown Mountain Road. I made the sharp left turn onto the highway towards town, to see if I could get on the next airboat to St. Croix. Luckily there was an available seat (or someone was bumped, I can’t remember which), and I was shortly on my way to St. Croix. I now had to find out where Governor King was going – and I couldn’t be late. As luck would have it, Education Commissioner Gwendolyn Kean was on the same flight and she advised me that the governor was scheduled to speak to an assembly of new teachers that morning. I caught a ride with Commissioner Kean and St. Croix District Superintendent Gloria Canegata who were both officiating at the event.After twenty minutes, we were pulling into the courtyard of an elementary school at mid-island where the event was taking place. Just ahead, I could see the taillights of Governor King’s official black Buick Electra pulling up to the curb. The Governor emerged momentarily from the car and headed towards the foyer of the school. I thanked Mrs. Kean and Mrs. Canegata for the ride, jumped from the car, and headed towards the school.Governor King had been quickly surrounded by teachers and administrators who he took the time to patiently greet before he delivered his remarks. He had a certain presence which drew people around him. Even as he would silently enter a room from the rear, people would seem to sense that he was there, and instinctively turn around. As he stood in the center of this group of educators, he glanced around the room and spotted me nearby with my legal pad in hand taking notes. He gave me a quick nod in recognition that I arrived – and that I wasn’t late. Had I not been there, he may not have asked me to accompany him on the next “mission.”It was my job at such events to draft the press release for the Governor’s outstanding Press Secretary Richie Allen for review and delivery to the media. I also had to get the names of the people who were photographed with the Governor. These complimentary pictures would be proudly displayed in many Virgin Islands homes. The Governor’s expert photographer, Leland Bertrand, was quite prolific in the number of pictures he would take of Virgin Islanders of all persuasions, and we had some interesting times linking the pictures with the names on my legal pad.Governor King always had time for people, and he was famous for his impromptu stops along the roadside to talk to construction workers, sanitation workers, businesspersons, students and just about everyone else. Quite unexpectedly, he would walk out of Government House with his administrator Levron (Pops) Saraw and head down the hill to Main Street to hear the concerns and ideas of the people. He especially had a lot of time for the youth and often stopped to watch young people play baseball and other sports in the various athletic leagues around the territory.Governor King was also an avid regionalist, and developed close relations with his counterpart Premier Robert Bradshaw of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla during the first two years of his term. He always recognized the progressive role of nationals of the Eastern Caribbean in the economic development of the US Virgin Islands. King became the first governor of the territory to make an official visit to the region, traveling to St. Kitts on several occasions. He also welcomed Premier Bradshaw on official visits to the territory. He was the first to participate in a meeting of CARICOM when he attended the Second Conference of the Heads of Government held in Basseterre, St. Kitts in December of 1975. Serious issues on the status of CARICOM nationals residing in the US Virgin Islands were addressed at that meeting.He was also the first governor to speak before the United Nations on the evolution of the constitutional status of the US Virgin Islands. This 1975 speech served as the precedent for the participation of successive governments in the United Nations review process of the constitutional development of the territory. By 2008, the territory still exists pursuant to a federal “Organic Act” in lieu of a local constitution – never mind, addressing the deficiencies in the prevailing political status of an unincorporated territory. As early as 1975, Governor recognised the prevailing situation as an anachronism.Governor King’s policies promoted innovation, implementation, self-help and the necessary political autonomy for the territory to engage the wider Caribbean and the world. He was clearly ahead of his time. His perspectives are largely unknown to later generations. Efforts should be made to heighten public awareness of the philosophies and opinions of this important leader in Virgin Islands and Caribbean history.Posted by Overseas Review at 9:12 PM 0 comments Links to this post07 April 2008International Dimension of a USVI ConstitutionThe United States Virgin Islands, as a U.S. - administered unincorporated territory in the Caribbean has embarked on its Fifth Constitutional Convention to draft a local constitution to replace the Revised Organic Act of 1954 which is a federal law that serves in lieu of a constitution. The Revised Act updated the original Organic Act of 1936. The system of governance under which the territory exists is underpinned by the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution which provides in Article 3 that the US Congress “shall make all needful rules for territory or other property of the United States,” and thus may legislate for the territories it administers.Other US - administered territories in the Caribbean and Pacific regions have addressed their constitutional advancement to varying degrees. Puerto Rico drafted a constitution in 1952 based on a commonwealth political status which, in effect, maintained the applicability of the Territorial Clause. The Northern Mariana Islands in 1976 approved a significantly more autonomous commonwealth arrangement and adopted a constitution based on that status. The territory of Guam adopted by referendum a similar autonomous commonwealth arrangement to its neighboring Marianas, but the proposal was not accepted by the US Congress during a process which took up much of the decade of the 1990s. Thus, Guam also is organized via an organic act. American Samoa completed its constitution in 1960, providing for the retention of many local customs and governance structures. An American Samoa political status commission in 2007 has made certain recommendations regarding the present arrangement.Since the enactment of the US Virgin Islands Revised Organic Act of 1954, constitutional advancement has been attained through ad hoc Congressional legislation, which included in 1968 the authority to replace the US-appointed governor with an elected governor, among other incremental changes. In 1971, one year after the election of the first governor, a constitutional convention was authorized, without regard to US Congressional authorization, with a draft constitution adopted in 1972. The document was not adopted in a local referendum, however, because of a less than required voter turn-out.In 1976, Congress adopted legislation authorizing the Territory to draft its own constitution recognizing the sovereignty of the United States over the islands. A constitutional convention was elected the following year, and in 1979 the draft constitution emanating from the convention was rejected in referendum. A subsequent convention in 1980 also produced a document which failed to be adopted by referendum in 1981.Several years prior, in 1979, the US President Jimmy Carter had completed a policy review of the governance of the US territories conducted by an Inter-Agency Territorial Policy Review Task Force chaired by the US Department of Interior which maintains administrative oversight of the US – administered territories. One of the conclusions of the policy review was the authorization for the territories to make recommendations or modifications to the prevailing political status. Federal impetus to this process, however, did not materialize as a result of the 1980 US presidential elections which resulted in the change of US government administration from President Carter to President Ronald Reagan.Nevertheless, the territorial government proceeded to establish its first political status commission in 1980, consistent with the Carter Administration authorization, to study potential changes to the existing political status arrangement with the aim “to negotiate the relationship of the (US) Virgin Islands…and to provide for popular ratification of a territorial-federal relationship.” The local legislation authorizing the first US Virgin Islands Status Commission made an important distinction between the 1976 federal law authorizing the creation of constitutional conventions which were limited to the prevailing political status arrangement, and the Carter Administration policy recommendations authorizing the territories to address the broader picture of political status modernization.This first Status Commission existed until 1982, and produced important recommendations, several of which were adopted by the territorial government at that time। Although the public education phase of its work was not completed, the Commission did raise the consciousness of the electorate of that period as to the distinction and inter-relationship between the constitution and the political status processes.Accordingly, during the 1982 general election, the electorate decided in a non-binding referendum issue that the status issue should be addressed before writing a constitution. For procedural reasons, however, legislation to convene a fifth constitutional convention was introduced instead, and despite recommendations to reduce the original cost of the convention, the Legislature did not adopt the measure.In 1983, a number of alternative mechanisms were considered to address the political status issue. By 1984, the Fifteenth Legislature of the US Virgin Islands created a Select Committee on Status and Federal Relations which also contributed to the growing body of work on political evolution. The subsequent legislature did not re-establish the Select Committee, however. By 1988, legislation was adopted to create a broader Commission on Status and Federal Relations which added significantly to the body of work already done by the previous two bodies. A referendum on political status options was held in 1993 following an extensive public education campaign, but failed to garner the necessary fifty percent of the registered voters. The territory, therefore reverted to the status quo political status, by default.No legislation was adopted addressing either the political status or local constitution issues in the intervening period, until 2004 when a bill was adopted to create a Fifth Constitutional Convention with the aim of a 2006 referendum on a draft document. This was later amended to give more time for the process to take shape. The present process requires that a draft constitution would be adopted by two-thirds vote of the thirty delegates of the Convention. The President of the Convention would then submit the draft to the Governor of the US Virgin Islands, who would, in turn, within ten (10) days submit the document to the President of the United States of America.The President would have sixty (60) calendar days to review the document, with substantive input from the relevant U.S. federal departments, in particular Interior and Justice, before transmitting it to the Congress of the United States which would have a period of sixty (60) legislative days for its review. Hearings on the draft would most probably be held in committees of the US House of Representatives and the Senate where representatives of the Constitutional Convention would introduce the draft and answer any queries which may arise. It is also possible that other selected individuals could make their views known to the Congress during the hearings. After the congressional review period, and any amendments which may be made to the text by the Congress, the draft document would be returned to the US Virgin Islands for submission to the voters in a referendum.In the course of the public sessions of the Fifth Constitutional Convention, a presentation was made on the International Dimension of a US Virgin Islands Constitution by Dr. Carlyle Corbin, international advisor on governance and former US Virgin Islands Minister of State for External Affairs. The presentation examined the relevant international treaties and agreements relating to the constitutional development of the territory, as well as relevant resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly. The presentation also covered a number of human rights treaties in relation to the drafting by the Convention of its bill of rights. Of particular note was reference to the Treaty of Cession which transferred the islands from Danish to US jurisdiction in 1917, particularly as related to the disposition of the inhabitants of the islands at the transfer. The paper goes on to review specific language included in previous draft constitutions of the US Virgin Islands which remain relevant to the present exercise. The paper goes on to examine specific competencies contained in the constitutions of American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico which might be useful in the contemporary US Virgin Islands process. The presentation also makes reference to key provisions of the new constitution which went into force in the British Virgin Islands in 2007, specifically as related to cultural and national identity. The presentation concludes with the important distinction between the drafting of a constitution based on the prevailing dependency status, and the process of self-determination which provides non-territorial options of political equality.The text of the presentation is available upon request from Overseas Territories Review at: overseasreview@yahoo.com.Posted by Overseas Review at 2:34 PM 0 comments Links to this post26 March 2008Father of the Modern-Day British Virgin Islands CommemoratedOn March 3, the people of the British Virgin Islands commemorated the birthday of the late Honorable H. Lavity Stoutt. A parade was held in his honor and a program conducted in Palm Grove Park where prominent speakers memorialized the life and work of the territory’s first elected chief minister who is affectionately remembered as the “father of the country.” It was a well-deserved tribute for this highly-respected leader who presided over the modernization of the British Virgin Islands as we have come to know it today.H. Lavity Stoutt was born in 1929 in Tortola and attended the Zion Hill Methodist Church, and later the Senior School which became the Virgin Islands Secondary School, and later the BVI High School. He later studied house and boat building, and began a career in wholesale and retail business. He served his community as superintendent in the West End Society of the Methodist School. He married Hilda Smith of Carrot Bay in 1956 with whom together he had six children. Mr. Stoutt began his political career when he was appointed to the Executive Council as a Minister of Works and Communications following the general elections of 1960 and 1963. In 1966 he participated in the constitutional conference in London which advocated for a full ministerial system to be extended to the territory. He led the newly-formed BVI United Party into the 1967 elections and became the territory’s first Chief Minister. He would give some 38 years of unbroken service to the people of the British Virgin Islands before his death in 1995, having served five times as chief minister He was the longest serving parliamentarian in the Caribbean.H. Lavity Stoutt’s entry into elected politics marked the acceleration of the development process of the territory. Over the following ten years active community groups successfully advocated for community control of Wickham’s Cay and prime land on the island of Anegada for the use and development of the people. Legislative measures crucial to the future development of the territory were also adopted including ordinances creating the Tourist Board, Immigration and Passport laws, Caribbean Development Bank membership, Land Surveyor laws, a Scholarship Trust Fund the creation of the Development Bank of the Virgin Islands and the Labor Code among other measures.By 1976, a new constitution was enacted for the territory which increased the number of constituencies to nine, abolished nominated membership, and removed certain responsibilities from the British-appointed governor to the elected chief minister. The post 1976 period saw an unprecedented rate of economic growth in the British Virgin Islands with the emergence of a dual pillar economy of tourism and the international financial sector. This advancement was largely attributed to the vision of H. Lavity Stoutt who was also a staunch advocate of regional cooperation. The territory joined ther Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States during his tenure.He also recognized the importance of developing formal relations with the U.S. Virgin Islands. Chief Minister Stoutt and US Virgin Islands Governor Alexander A. Farrelly forged a close bond through which a dynamic intergovernmental relationship was formed with the signing of the first formal agreement between the two elected governments creating the Inter Virgin Islands Conference in 1990. This new organization was designed as a mechanism for cooperation between government agencies in the respective territories. Emerging from this agreement were the beginnings of sustained cooperation in law enforcement, natural resources management, inter-island transportation, cultural preservation and a host of other areas of collaboration. This agreement set the stage for future cooperation between the elected governments of the two territories. Chief Minister Stoutt and Governor Farrelly shared the view that the political evolution of the two territories warranted the development of such cooperation between the elected leadership, even as there were those in both territories who felt that such intergovernmental relations should only take place on their behalf between London and Washington. These two leaders stood firm, and won the backing of Washington and London for their initiative.Chief Minister Stoutt was also a proponent for increased self-government and devolution of power from Britain, and spoke regularly on the need for a true partnership between London and the British dependent territories to correct the political imbalances. Speaking before the British Virgin Islands Legislative Assembly in October 1992, Stoutt questioned the British assertion at the time that the financial services sector would not be sustainable because of the need for possible restrictions. On the contrary, new laws aimed to facilitate transparency and due diligence in the financial sector were enacted enabling the British Virgin Islands to become a model for financial services worldwide.Chief Minister Stoutt was a staunch advocate of constitutional advancement for the British Virgin Islands. In a 1993 address to the people of the territory, he pointed that in 1967 the budget of the territory was still subsidized by London, and “as a result of our good stewardship” the territory no longer received grant-in-aid from the British by 1979. He emphasized that this was done within the framework of the shift of government financial control to an elected minister. He asserted that there would be “no turning back” to the days when the elected government would have no control over its financial management, and not the “slightest consideration” should be given to any other reduction of the powers of the elected government.He was clear in his vision that the British Virgin Islands should be granted full internal self-government and ultimately independence. Subsequently, when unilateral changes in 1994 were made from London creating four new ‘at-large’ electoral seats in addition to the nine district seats - without the opportunity for a debate in the local Legislative Council - Stoutt denounced the action as “a plot to derail” him, according to the obituary published in the Independent of London upon his death. As a consummate politician, however, he maneuvered this adversity to his advantage, and his party won all four of the at-large seats in the 1995 election. He later announced that “the people have had their say and their voice had been heard.”British Virgin Islands Deputy Governor Elton Georges who worked with Chief Minister Stoutt from the 1980s until his death once wrote that H. Lavity Stoutt was a “dynamic, visionary leader who believed in creating ever-expanding opportunities for the people of the territory to be prosperous.” One of these opportunities was the idea of the creation of a institution of tertiary education, even as others were not in favor. As it turned out, the Community College which now bears his name has become an exemplary institution of higher learning recognised world wide. Quite appropriately, its choir performed at the commemoration at Palm Grove Park in honor of the life, dedication and commitment of this Virgin Islands stalwart who Deputy Governor Georges so aptly described as having a “dominant and unshakeable” place in British Virgin Islands history.
Thirty-three representatives of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government gathered in a circle on `Iolani Palace grounds at 7:05 AM this morning, joining hands and saying a prayer and singing before eventually coming together for a private meeting and declining all interviews with the media. On Friday, the US controlled Department of Land and Natural Resources denied the group's request for a right to assemble permit that is required for all groups of 25 or more. The group applied for a new permit this morning, and that permit request is still pending. Hawaiian Kingdom Government representatives have been staying on palace grounds during the work week since April 30 when they initially laid claim to the grounds and denied public access to them for nearly eight hours. Since the first week, Hawaiian Kingdom representatives have applied for and received permits to assemble on the premise on a weekly basis.This morning's gathering of 33 was monitored closely by DLNR law officials who were parked in the adjacent parking lot less than 100 yards away.Following the group's closed meeting, Kahau briefly met with a DLNR enforcement officer and hugged him. It's not clear at this time if the Hawaiian Kingdom applied for and received a new permit. Hawaiian Kingdom representatives have said in the past they will continue to occupy the grounds indefinitely.A handful of them started funneling onto the property before 6 AM and Kahau arrived at 7 AM with a lei around her neck. After brief greetings, the representatives met for 55 minutes.Many of their vehicles had license plates reading "Hawaiian Kingdom Government," and a number rather than state of Hawai`i plates. Also, as of 8:30 AM the representatives hadn't put any money into the parking meters on the grounds.
STOP! Hammah time!...
All of last week, I would be running up & down the stairs at work, huffing & puffing, wondering why in the world, all of a sudden, I'm so out of shape. Shoots, I do those stairs practically every day! Thursday, I looked out to the horizon.. it was gone. I couldn't even see a mile away, it was all whited out. When the vog's that thick, you know there aint no wind. Yuck! At least I knew I wasn't out of shape, it was just the vog doing a number on my lungs, which are sometimes bothered with asthma. Even my supervisor was like, "Wut da heo?! I'm not out of shape!" haha. We both had a good laugh together teasing ourselves about being all out of breath from just running up a couple of flights of stairs...
Why is it that whenever I run into people, they always ask me the same question : "So when you going back to Japan?" There is other things you can talk to me about. Yeah, I know I don't always talk, but hey, you seem to enjoy doing all the talking, so "nou ka hau'oli!" Then when I answer with a truthful "I dunno", they get all bummed out like I just ruined their plans of scoring omiyage. Sheez. I know I'm going to another country, but do you know how heavy it is to lug all that stuff around? & do you realize there is a weight limit for my bags? Not just weight, but a number limit? My friend does want to take the group up to Japan since it does have the most requests. He just has to work out the kinks first & plan everything out. It should be pretty soon though.
Yesterday was my nieces First Holy Communion. My sister asked me to make her a haku, so ok. I'm not Catholic, so I have no clue what in the world is a Holy Communion. I did know I needed to sit in church for a couple of hours. Errrr, more sitting there & acting like a good girl? Hmmm. Come to find out, more kids were having their FHC too. A bunch of girls had hakus on.. looking nothing like the one I made. My mom starts laughing. I tell her "Shut up, don't tease their skimpy hakus. So not nice. Cheesus eez watsching u!" lol. Of course through the entire thing I'm standing up, sitting down, standing up, sitting down, taking cues from my sister, who's only laughing cause I'm like in another world. Yeah, blame the benedryl (but that's another story). They were singing so freaking much. The bad part about it was the lady behind me had such a high voice, it was soo not helping that building migraine I had. After that, I was thanking God to be out of church. Heh. Then we went to lunch, where all of sitting at the "kids table" pretty much argued about who was supposed to eat the food that was left. After that was when the fun really started.
It actually started the night before, with my continuous sneezing for 3+ hours (hence the benedryl). I was already groggy from that, but then I started feeling kindda dizzy. Then I started to get a migraine. Darn. Darn that crazy singing lady behind me who thought she had a voice. Ugh. By lunch, my stomach starts doing flips & I kept getting hit by waves of nausea. So I'm thinking it's cause I haven't eaten yet. All I had was a sip of my sisters iced tea. We get home later & the nausea is still coming on. Then I start thinking, "Oh dang. Dont tell me I'm having another food allergy attack". I still had to do paperwork, take it to the office, & run to Wally World for cat food & stuff. I eat like 3 dinner rolls & I'm already full. I make a run out the door to get everything done since I felt slightly better. I run into 2 of my aunties shopping (that's another story). I'm walking around, swirving, so I tell my mom we better hurry up. We get home & it's worse. I tell myself if it's not better by morning, to call in sick. Did I? No. Woke up too fridgen late to call in. So I literally drag myself around the house to get ready & to work.
I get in to find "Tommy" went to the healthroom. When I walk in the door, I see a girl sitting across from him & I ask myself, "Wait, isn't this the girl that hates him?" It is. She's holding ice on her lip. I know he wouldn't punch someone. He's too awkward. A 5 year old could easily dodge his attempts. He didn't. She had had an "accident". But "Tommy" had a sore throat & cough. He had no fever, so the nurse asked if he wanted to stay or go home. He says he'll stay. By 3rd period, he's hacking up a lung all over & the kids are all grossing out & screaming to me, so I, for the umpteenth time, ask him to cover his mouth & if he wants to go to the healthroom. He finally goes back & tells the nurse he wants to go home. Yay, that means sicky me gets to go home too. Still nauseous.
I run to the doctors to pick up some medicine & find out my medical is all messed up. Could I pick up medicine? Sure. Did I wanna pay the $45? Nope. So I leave without it. & people wonder why I don't like going to the doctors! Too much stupidness! But it's all good. I didn't direly need it. I'll get it later.. when I find out wut da heo is going on with my medical. Even the guy at the doctor's office was (even though he had absolutely no personality & seemed bored out of his mind) a bit confused. Hmmm...
