SELF-DETERMINATION ONLY PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE TO GIBRALTAR, CHIEF MINISTER OF TERRITORY TELLS FOURTH COMMITTEE

7 October 1998

Press Release
GA/SPD/134

SELF-DETERMINATION ONLY PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE TO GIBRALTAR, CHIEF MINISTER OF TERRITORY TELLS FOURTH COMMITTEE

19981007 Committee Takes Up Decolonization Issues, Hears Petitioners; Guam Says United States Position on Decolonization Violates Treaty of Paris

The Chief Minister of Gibraltar this morning urged the United Nations to declare that self-determination was the only principle applicable to the decolonization process of that Territory, as the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) took up general decolonization matters and heard petitioners on questions relating to the Non-Self-Governing Territories of Gibraltar and Guam.

He said the exercise of self-determination could not be advanced in bilateral dialogue between the United Kingdom and Spain. Only respect for Gibraltar's right to self-determination could bring about the decolonization of the Territory in accordance with the spirit of the Charter and that should be reflected in the Committee's recommendation to the General Assembly.

Concerning the situation in Guam, the Guam delegate to the United States Congress said the United States Government had responsibility under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, in which the United States took control of the Territory from Spain, to help advance the civil rights and the political status of the people of Guam. The United States Government's position on decolonization of Guam was disrespectful of indigenous rights, and a direct violation of its obligations under that Treaty.

A representative of the Mayor's Council of Guam added that, while representatives of the United States often bristled at the suggestion, there was no denying Guam's colonial status. They pretended that Guam was just another part of the United States.

On the question of implementation of the 1960 General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, a representative of the Government of the United States Virgin Islands told

Fourth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SPD/134 4th Meeting (AM) 7 October 1998

the Committee that differing political alternatives to independence should be recognized as legitimate, but only if they provided a minimum level of political equality required for the attainment of full self-government.

Statements on the situation in Guam were also made by the Vice-Chairman of the Guam Commission on Decolonization and another member of the Commission. A representative of the National Socialist Front for the Liberation of the Kanak People also made a statement. Questions were posed to petitioners by the representatives of Papua New Guinea and Syria.

At the outset of this morning's meeting, the representative of Morocco questioned the need to hear petitioners on the question of Western Sahara, pointing out that the process there had reached a delicate stage with the expected visit to the region of the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, James Baker III. The representative of Algeria said it was a rule that petitioners should be heard and that practice dated back to the 1950s. The Chairman also addressed the issue.

The Fourth Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Friday, 9 October, to hear petitioners on the question of Western Sahara and continue its consideration of decolonization matters. The Chairman announced that the Committee will take action on decolonization resolutions on 13 October.

Committee Work Programme

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this morning to continue its consideration of decolonization issues, including the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (document A/53/23, Parts II to IX). It was expected to hear from representatives of the Non-Self-Governing Territory of Guam; consider petitions on New Caledonia and Western Sahara; and continue its general debate. (For detains of all docomentation before the Committee see Press Release GA/SPD/133, issued 5 October.)

Statement on Western Sahara

At the outset of the meeting, EL HASSANE ZAHID (Morocco) said that, unfortunately, in recent years the majority of the petitioners on the issue regarding the Moroccan provinces of the South did not seem to come from the area and had no links to the Territory, unlike other petitioners on other Non-Self-Governing Territories, such as the United States Virgin Islands. He said the issue of Western Sahara had reached a delicate stage and statements by petitioners could complicate matters. More tranquillity was needed until the Secretary-General's Personal Envoy, James Baker III, had completed his mission. He requested the Secretariat to provide justification for the appearance of the petitioners.

ABDALLAH BAALI (Algeria) expressed disquiet about the statement of the representative of Morocco. He said that over the years petitioners had appeared before the Committee to share their knowledge of issues. The Moroccan representative seemed to ignore the rules that permitted petitioners to be granted a hearing. It would be very harmful if the right of petitioners to appear before the Committee was violated.

Mr. ZAHID (Morocco) said he would have preferred that the Secretariat respond to the questions he had raised. The issue had reached a delicate stage, with the forthcoming visit to the area by Mr. Baker. Statements by petitioners had to shed light on issues. Such testimonies should be realistic and objective, not merely theoretical. He hoped the Secretariat would provide the clarification he sought.

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico), Chairman of the Committee, said the right of petitioners to appear before a Committee was enshrined in the Charter. At the same time, the Secretariat was not the competent source for the response sought by the representative of Morocco. The petitioners themselves could explain their interest in issues under discussion. Committee members had an interest in the information that petitioners could provide.

Fourth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/SPD/134 4th Meeting (AM) 7 October 1998

Mr. ZAHID (Morocco) said he was not sure what contributions could be provided by people who were not from the Territory. It was difficult from their application to determine what contribution, if any, they could make.

Mr. MACEDO (Mexico), the Chairman, said delegations would have the opportunity to ask the petitioners questions.

Hearing of Representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories

P.R.CARUANA, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, said his delegation was once again appearing before the Committee to reassert the Territory's right to self-determination and to rebut the arguments of Spain in its attempt to obtain sovereignty over Gibraltar against the democratic wishes of the people. The delegation also sought from the United Nations a clear acknowledgement and declaration of the applicability of the principle of self-determination as the only principle relevant to the decolonization of Gibraltar.

He said the people of Gibraltar were not Spanish and did not wish to be part of the Spanish State. The facts about Gibraltar and its people spoke for themselves. He said he would welcome United Nations visits to the Territory and recalled earlier invitations extended to the Committee.

He recalled that the Committee had annually made recommendations to the General Assembly calling on the administering Power -- the United Kingdom -- and Spain to take part in a bilateral process of dialogue aimed at overcoming all the differences between them over Gilbratar. Such a recommendation did not address the fact that the issue was not the resolution of supposed bilateral differences between the administering Power and the third party territorial claimant.

The people of Gibraltar had the right to decide their own future, he said. The exercise of self-determination could not be advanced in bilateral dialogue between the United Kingdom and Spain. Only respect for Gibraltar's right to self-determination could bring about the decolonization of the Territory in accordance with the spirit of the Charter and the Committee's recommendation to the General Assembly should reflect that.

He said Gibraltar had legitimate aspirations to achieve a full measure of self-government. The Committee's support would be enormously significant, but the Territory's agenda could not be delayed pending a declaration by the United Nations on their representations. Proposals for further constitutional change had moved forward since last year and discussions continued with the United Kingdom's Government on the modernization of Gibraltar's constitutional links with the United Kingdom.

The Territory aimed to achieve a relationship that maintained close political links with the United Kingdom, but which produced the greatest

Fourth Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/SPD/134 4th Meeting (AM) 7 October 1998

possible degree of self-government, he said. The new arrangements would end the colonial status of Gibraltar and constitute the tailor-made fourth option to decolonization provided for in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, he continued.

He said the new constitutional arrangements they sought from the United Kingdom would not settle the dispute with Spain. They wanted, therefore, on a parallel but unconnected basis, to pursue a process of dialogue with Spain, to improve relations and to establish a better communication on the large variety of issues that affected the two countries.

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, delegate to the United States Congress from Guam, said he stood and appealed to the Committee on behalf of the people of the island of Guam, who sought recognition as an indigenous people. Moreover, he asked the Committee to give favourable consideration to the stand-alone resolution on Guam and supported the inclusion of language recognizing the role of the Chamorro people in Guam's decolonization process.

The colonizers had come and gone, but the Chamorros had remained steadfast in their viability as a people, he said. Admittedly, Guam, like any other Non-Self-Governing Territory, assimilated some customs and habits from its administering Power. The Chamorro culture, however, had survived.

Each time the case of Guam had been presented, the United States had decided that their own domestic laws, their own sense of democracy, their view of how to conduct elections superseded the process, he said. That position was disrespectful of indigenous rights and failed to understand the unique history of Guam. The United States Government had a responsibility under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, under the terms of which Guam changed hands from Spain to the United States, to help advance the civil rights and the political status of the people of Guam. Their opposition was a direct violation of their obligation under the Treaty.

There were cries from the United States Congress calling for "self- determination" for the East Timorese, the Basques, the Roma, the Kurds, Bosnia-Muslims, the northern Irish Catholics, the tribes of Western Sahara and many more. The irony of ironies was that the United States representatives had denied those very fundamental rights to fellow Americans, rights which were routinely supported in other areas and in proclamations regarding indigenous peoples.

ISABEL SANTOS-HAGGARD, representative of the Mayor's Council of Guam, said the situation in Guam -- where people had democratically proposed a decolonization process -- should be evaluated on its own. The situation in Guam should not be hidden in the text of an omnibus resolution amongst territories that had little or no active official or unofficial movement towards decolonization.

Fourth Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/SPD/134 4th Meeting (AM) 7 October 1998

She was very encouraged by references in the Committee's resolution to the colonized people of Guam, she said. However, in the past few years -- as the administering Power had attempted to detract attention from Guam by pushing the island into an omnibus resolution and by removing references to the colonized people -- the Chamorro people had sometimes felt that the world was turning their backs on them.

Despite Guam's democratic call for local self-government and a process for decolonization, the administering Power appeared to be comfortable as a deaf and blind administrator, she said. While representatives of the United States often bristled at the suggestion that Guam's status was colonial, there was no denying its colonial status. Representatives of the administering Power pretended that Guam was just another part of the United States.

A colony by any other name was a colony, she said. At the core of the issues were those of immigration and land use. The manner in which the administering Power handled those issues not only defined Guam's colonial problem, but also pointed to the clear nature of colonialism. One third of Guam was held in colonial title and the island's natural development was grossly restricted. Moreover, the administering Power had admitted immigrants with virtually no limit on their number, increasing the population by nearly 40 per cent in just over a decade.

RONALD F. RIVERA (Guam), Vice-Chair, Guam Commission on Decolonization, said the situation in Guam was acute. Guam was a Non-Self-Governing Territory that sought an end to colonialism, while the administering Power had no interest in promoting decolonization and full self-government. Moreover, Guam believed it was appropriate that the island be considered separately from territories in the omnibus resolution.

The present position of the administering Power on the question of Guam's decolonization appeared to be simply one of engagement anticipating that the effect of colonial law would wear the people down, he said. The current colonial practices, including the application of laws without representation or consent, an assimilationist immigration programme and control over Guam's property and resources were a violation of the rights of the colonized people of Guam.

The situation stood in stark contrast to the situation that existed in other Non-Self-Governing Territories where administering Powers had at least proposed integration mechanism as an alternative to unilateral colonial control, he said. In Guam, under the laws of the administering Power, the people were but a possession, a piece of property.

Guam believed that the current posture of the administering Power was undeserving of the posture of the United States as the vanguard of international human rights. The administering Power's colonial policies

Fourth Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/SPD/134 4th Meeting (AM) 7 October 1998

towards Guam were a violation of one of the most basic human right, the right of a colonized people to regain control of their resources and to exercise a sovereign government.

In response to the call of the people of Guam for limits on immigration, the administering Power had opened the floodgates, allowing over 40,000 new colonizers to come to Guam, he said. This number of newly arrived immigrants represented nearly one third of Guam's 1990 census population. By 1990, over 50 per cent of the population was not born in Guam. The tragic irony was that it was the administering Power's immigration policies in Guam that had created a situation which the administering Power now conveniently interpreted as racial and ethnic. It was the administering Power that had admitted thousands of settlers each year into Guam and then pretended it was the colonized people who would discriminate when it came time to determine Guam's decolonized political status.

The situation in Western Sahara, New Caledonia, Tokelau, East Timor, and even Gibraltar and the Falklands were reviewed separately, he said. Why should the stipulation in Guam be different than in those Territories when the people for over 10 years had toiled in their attempts to establish a process for decolonization? The draft resolution of the Special Committee before this Committee (document A/AC.109/2129) reflected Guam's attempts to establish a process for the island's decolonization, and served to remind the administering Power of the responsibilities it had accepted as a sacred trust under the United Nations Charter.

JIMMY OVIA (Papua New Guinea) asked whether the people of Guam and their representatives were interested in the draft resolution and supported it. He also asked whether the resolution brought forward Guam's decolonization process and promoted dialogue between the people and the administering Power.

Mr. RIVERA said there was no question that the draft resolution on Guam was supported by the people and their representatives. The resolution reflected the situation in the Territory and was very widely supported. He also said the resolution advanced the process of decolonization and anticipated a plebiscite to be held next year to determine the Territory's future. He hoped it would promote dialogue. The representatives of the people continued to seek to engage the administering Power in dialogue over the Territory's future.

HOPE ALVAREZ CRISTOBAL, speaking on behalf of Senator Francis E. Santos, member of the Guam Commission, said she fully supported the draft resolution of the Special Committee (document A/AC.109/2129) which reaffirmed that the question of Guam was a question of decolonization which remained to be completed by the colonized Chamorro people of Guam. Moreover, she urged members of the Committee to approve it in the General Assembly.

Fourth Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/SPD/134 4th Meeting (AM) 7 October 1998

While the Chamorro government in Guam was moving forward through its own initiative on its journey towards decolonization, she said, the Chamorro people had been plagued by the historical resistance and lack of formal cooperation by the administering Power, the United States, with regard to the 1980 United Nations plan.

The Chamorro people of Guam were tired of feeling rejected by the administering Power, and tired of its disregard for its moral and legal responsibilities under the United Nations Charter and United Nations resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV), she said. There had also been no sign that the United States was trying to fulfil its responsibilities to decolonize Guam.

While the United States Congress and Government supported processes for self-determination in Western Sahara and East Timor, she said, it was a sad irony indeed that the so-called international champion of human rights saw fit to direct others towards enlightened solutions, but was unable to hold a candle to its own colonial legacy. The colonized Chamorro people in Guam were apparently being made to languish and wait for expressed recognition and forthright support in the exercise of their inherent and inalienable right to self-determination. It was truly unconscionable that decolonization for Guam must be initiated in Guam because the administering Power continued to be uncooperative.

Guam urged the Committee to approve the draft resolution before it and called upon the administering Power to cooperate with Guam's Commission on Decolonization for the Implementation and Exercise of Chamorro Self- Determination in order to facilitate Guam's decolonization, she said.

Implementation of General Assembly Declaration

CARLYLE CORBIN, Representative for External Affairs of the Government of the United States Virgin Islands, speaking on the subject of implementation of the 1960 General Assembly Declaration on decolonization, said his Government supported the omnibus resolution on most of the small island territories and the text on assistance by United Nations agencies to Non-Self-Governing Territories. He urged a mechanism that would enable the Fourth Committee to consider reports on the various seminars organized by the Special Committee on decolonization.

With regard to reference to the right to self-determination in the omnibus resolution, he said his Government supported the view that independence was but one legitimate political option. Differing political alternatives should be recognized as legitimate, but only if they provided a minimum level of political equality required for the attainment of full self-government. Dependency models that provided partial equality or the illusion of equality, even if done in good faith, simply did not conform to

Fourth Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/SPD/134 4th Meeting (AM) 7 October 1998

the parameters set by the 1960 General Assembly resolution 1541, which established principles for determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit information on Non-Self-Governing Territories.

He said examples of legitimate models of equality, short of independence, had long been recognized by the General Assembly based on its resolution 1541. It was evident that none of the Territories currently considered non-self-governing by the General Assembly had met the criteria of full equality, while it was recognized that some political changes were being contemplated. He called for a second decade for the eradication of colonialism, with specific achievable goals and an expanded role for the respective regional groups.

He said the process of achieving a full measure of self-government in the remaining Territories had not ended, but had entered a new and more complex phase. The United Nations role in monitoring that process was more important than ever, especially in view of the ongoing bilateral discussions, proposals and other developments affecting a number of Territories. It should not be assumed that those developments would necessarily result in full self-government and equality. It must be ensured that the decolonization process was not permitted to expire through the redefinition of the current arrangements as "self-governing", without the people of the Territories themselves having achieved full political equality in whatever political arrangement they freely chose.

FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria), Rapporteur of the Special Committee on decolonization, asked what that Special Committee and the Fourth Committee could do to accelerate the process of decolonization in the Non-Self-Governing Territories.

Mr. CORBIN, of the Virgin Islands, said they had a continuing role to play in monitoring developments in those Territories towards full political equality, based on General Assembly resolution 1541.

Mr. OVIA (Papua New Guinea) asked where Mr. Corbin saw the role of the Special Committee or the United Nations in cases where the people of Non-Self- Governing Territories decided on some form of integration or association with the administering country.

Mr. CORBIN, of the Virgin Islands, said the United Nations should ensure those developments met the test set out by the General Assembly.

ROCH WAMYTAN, President of the National Socialist Front for the Liberation of the Kanak People (FLNKS), said his country agreed with France on the idea of a referendum as spelled out in the 1988 Matignon Accords, signed by the local political leaders, but the two parties had not yet come to terms on the composition of an electoral body. The Kanak people were concerned that

Fourth Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/SPD/134 4th Meeting (AM) 7 October 1998

the proposed arrangements would make them a minority in their own land despite French assurances and promises it would once again be a majority. He also noted that there had been a 20 per cent increase, totalling about 20,000 non-Kanak peoples in New Caledonia over the past 20 years.

The reform process that had begun in 1988 had crystallized passions around the idea of national sovereignty, which threatened a social explosion if it were not carried through and the rights of the Kanak people and other communities who were victims of French colonial rule were not legitimized, he said.

The Noumea Agreements that should begin implementation at the end of the year and continue through the year 2000 showed steps in the right direction to prepare the Kanak people for independence, but the United Nations must remain vigilant during this process and not remove New Caledonia from its list of Non-Self-Governing Territories until emancipation was completed and they were fully independent and taken into the covenant of nations. Moreover, the signed commitments of all parties, including political, social and economic, must be unswerving in their implementation of such measures.

* *** *