FOURTH COMMITTEE HEARS PETITIONERS ON GUAM, WESTERN SAHARA, NEW CALEDONIA AND EAST TIMOR

Press Release
GA/SPD/159

FOURTH COMMITTEE HEARS PETITIONERS ON GUAM, WESTERN SAHARA, NEW CALEDONIA AND EAST TIMOR

The colonized people of Guam would vote on its status by 4 July 2000, a representative of that Territory’s Governor told the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) this afternoon, as the Committee continued consideration of decolonization issues and heard petitioners.

He said that the process towards that vote had been established in accordance with Guam’s law, by which the colonized Chamorro people would vote on the Territory’s decolonized status. The administering Power had engaged Guam in negotiations, but would not grant it autonomy under United States sovereignty. A vote might be a catalyst for change, but it took more than one party for decolonization to occur. Guam would work with the United States to secure its support.

Speaking during the Committee’s general debate, which followed the hearing of petitioners, the representative of the United States said that his country supported those countries which chose independence and was proud to work with them on an equal sovereign basis. His Government also supported those Territories that did not choose independence. The right of self-determination included the options of integration and free association, but was not limited by them, he noted.

Among petitioners who spoke on the question of Western Sahara was the representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (POLISARIO Front). He said it appeared that Morocco was not satisfied with agreements that it had signed. It had made numerous complaints and accusations against the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), which had recently begun identifying the remaining 65,000 applicants for the referendum.

He said hopes that the United Nations would be able to publish the definitive voters’ list, declare the beginning of the transitional period by next January, and organize the referendum in July 2000 were not realistic. In addition to the 65,000 remaining applicants, Morocco had decided to submit 10,000 more appeals from those applicants who had already been rejected.

Regarding East Timor, most petitioners agreed on the urgent need to return the East Timorese refugees to their homes and to assist an international commission of inquiry into reported atrocities. The Vice-President of the Indonesian Association for Legal Aid and Human Rights compared the incidents of torture in

Fourth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SPD/159 5th Meeting (PM) 6 October 1999

East Timor by the Indonesian military to its intimidation of the rest of Indonesian people, especially in Aceh and West Papua, to quell their aspirations to self- determination. For 30 years, the Indonesian army had based its permanent interventions in Indonesian civilian politics on the ideology of “Indonesian unity and union”, he said.

Another petitioner on that question said that early reports of massacres committed by militias and Indonesian forces appeared to have been greatly exaggerated or false. Nor had the parents of pro-independence leader Jose Alexandre Gusmao been slain as had been reported. Reports of human rights violations could not be verified except in an atmosphere of cooperation between the international community and Indonesia. All present allegations of violations, though serious, must be treated as such -- not as proof.

Also this afternoon, the Committee granted additional requests for hearing and heard a petitioner on the question of New Caledonia.

Statements in general debate were also made by the representatives of the United Kingdom, Pakistan, Singapore and Iraq.

The Fourth Committee will continue its consideration of decolonization issues at 3 p.m. tomorrow.

Committee Work Programme

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this afternoon to continue its consideration of decolonization issues. It was also expected to hear petitioners on the questions of Guam, Western Sahara, New Caledonia and East Timor. (For background information, see Press Release GA/SPD/157 of 4 October.)

Question of Guam

PAUL BORDALLO, representative of the Governor of Guam, said that last year the question of Guam had been the subject of extensive consultations between Guam and the administering Power with the guidance of the Special Committee on decolonization. He was pleased that last year the administering Power had agreed to language urging it to cooperate with a process of decolonization, which had been outlined in Guam. This year’s resolution mirrored that of last year. The people of Guam had watched the developments in East Timor with great interest and hope. The settlement there was now in view due to the existence of a long- standing international legal framework around the issue of decolonization, which had prompted the actions there.

The people of Guam were citizens of the United States, and its government maintained an open and direct dialogue with that country, he continued. The United States extended many benefits to Guam and had close ties with it. Despite Guam’s appreciation for the benefits that the United States had brought, under United States law Guam was a possession, but not a part of the United States. Many decisions about the lives of the people of Guam were made without their consent. Decisions about immigration to Guam, which changed the demography of the Chamorro homeland, were also made by the United States alone, as were decisions about control over the limited land and resource base.

Over a decade ago, Guam had proposed to the United States Government, through a ballot, an interim autonomous status under United States sovereignty, he said. For a decade, the administering Power had engaged Guam in discussions and negotiations, but the response was that it would not grant such an autonomy to Guam. The hand dealt to Guam was familiar to colonial peoples and, for that reason, his administration had embarked on a path that pushed the process for self-government to a new level. A process had been established in accordance with Guam’s law, by which the colonized Chamorro people would vote on Guam’s decolonized status. That vote was scheduled to take place before 4 July 2000. The administering Power had indicated that it did not support the process. While Guam would work with the Government of the United States to secure its support, which the United Nations had requested in last year’s resolution, he appealed for the continued interest and support from the international community.

A vote in Guam was only the beginning of the decolonization of Guam, he said. The United States must also take action and respond to the wishes of the colonized people. A vote might be a catalyst for change, but it took more than one party for decolonization to occur. There was yet to be commitment on the part of the United States Government. Guam had also asked for a dispatch of a visiting mission to Guam on the occasion of the self-determination vote. While such a request might not be popular with the United States Government, he believed that the presence of United Nations observers was a minimum requirement.

RUFO J. LUJAN, of the Organization of People for Indigenous Rights, said that until the 1962 lifting of the United States Security Clearance to enter Guam, Chamorros had been the sole inhabitants of the island. Today, they preferred the term “Chamorro” for identification purposes, although the United States continued to use the term “Guamanian”. The Chamorros were a body of human beings of different ethnic make-up, with a culture and traditions, a language and a history -- including 400 years of colonization and 100 years under the flag of the United States.

He said that inhabitants of Guam and others residing there, due to the immigration policies of the administering Power, had no right to decide for the Chamorros. Those assimilationist immigration polices had resulted in the systematic influx of outside inhabitants and settlers, disrupted Guam’s demographic composition, and constituted a major obstacle to the genuine exercise of self-determination by the Chamorros.

While welcoming operative paragraph 9 of the resolution adopted by the Special Committee on decolonization on 21 July, he said that the peoples of the Territories concerned should have a voice in developing a framework for the implementation of Article 73 e of the United Nations Charter and the decolonization Declaration for the period beyond the year 2000. He formally asked that Guam not be removed from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories pending the attainment of the political status chosen for the Territory, through the self-determination of the Chamorro people.

Noting that the phrase “Calls upon” in operative paragraph 1 of last year’s resolution had been changed to “Requests”, he said the Chamorro people were unaware of any negotiations taking place considering their expressed will. They were greatly concerned about that paragraph as it showed a differentiation between the Chamorro people and the so-called people of Guam. The Chamorros were the people of Guam and they believed that they were the people of Guam that the Special Committee and the administering Power should be addressing.

He said that operative paragraph 6, which had been changed, clearly illustrated a change in meaning. It was deceptive and concurred with other United States actions to have the Fourth Committee believe that the Chamorro people were but an indigenous people in the Territory. It was a strategy that had been concocted several years ago when the administrating Power had lost ground in other areas of the resolution.

Question of Western Sahara

AHMED BOUKHARI, of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (POLISARIO Front), said that despite all the suffering during the almost 25 years of struggle, his people had not lost its faith that, like in East Timor, the United Nations would some day again assume its responsibility to put an end to the unjust war that fostered insecurity and instability throughout the region. The settlement efforts had been taking place since 1988, when a plan had been proposed by the United Nations, jointly with the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The process had encountered many setbacks. Late in the summer of 1998, Morocco had demanded a revision of the Houston agreements, thereby halting the progress being made by the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) to finalize the identification of potential voters. After that, the United Nations Secretary-General had proposed a package deal that took into consideration the Moroccan demands, while, at the same time, reaffirming the rigour and transparency of the entire voter identification process.

A fresh round of negotiations had resulted in new protocols governing the identification of the so-called contested tribes and norms governing the appeals process, he continued. Morocco had finally accepted the Secretary-General’s proposal. However, now it appeared that Morocco was not satisfied with what it had signed. It had made numerous complaints and accusations against MINURSO. Having identified 84,000 applicants who met eligibility criteria out of 147,000 applicants during the period between 1994 and 1999, MINURSO had recently begun the process of identification of the remaining applicants. That group included 65,000 Moroccan citizens currently residing in Morocco. The MINURSO estimated that the last phase of the identification process would be completed in December.

Some hoped that, by next January, the United Nations would be in position to publish the definitive voters list, declare the beginning of the transitional period, begin the total deployment of MINURSO, and organize the referendum in July 2000, he said. Unfortunately, that would not be the case. Morocco had decided to submit some 74,000 appeals for MINURSO to review –- not only the cases of all the rejected applicants, but also of another 10,000 persons who had not been accepted as voters. In its resolution 1238 (1999) of 14 May, the Security Council had expressed the hope that the appeals process would not be transformed into a new identification process. If the Council and MINURSO did not effectively oppose that strategy of delay, the referendum could be postponed beyond the year 2000.

One of the most decisive factors for the credibility of the referendum was the degree of security and freedom of voters, he continued. However, since the beginning of the occupation of Western Sahara, Morocco had been waging a fierce campaign of repression against the Saharan people. The repression had reached its peak in late September 1999, when units of special police forces, accompanied by militias of Moroccan colonists, had sown terror among the Saharan population in occupied Laayoune. The scenario of terror, assaults and death had been inflicted, despite the fact that the United Nations had a mission there.

RAMON ORFILA I PONS, of the Federación Estatal de Instituciones Solidarias con el Pueblo Saharaui, said the indomitable Saharawi people had dealt with colonial rule by Spain and later with occupation by Morocco and Mauritania. In January 1992, the date set for the referendum in Western Sahara had not been respected. The appointment of James Baker III and the signing of the Houston agreements had awakened new hopes for the referendum, which, however, had then been dashed by one delay after another in implementing the peace plan and by Morocco’s attempts to paralyse the process.

He said there might be a repetition of the laborious process of identifying a large number of people. The issue was complicated by the more than 500 Saharawis missing since the Moroccan Government released detainees in 1991. Other Saharawi people had been missing for more than 16 years.

Only international pressure could ensure the referendum’s implementation, he said. Would the international community do nothing? he asked. A peaceful solution to the Western Sahara question must involve implementation of the Houston agreements and respect for the Settlement Plan. There must be a guarantee of full freedom of movement in the closed zones for all Saharawis. The presence of international observers and media representatives, guaranteed by the United Nations, was essential.

He said East Timor had shown that the United Nations could guarantee implementation of a popular consultation. The challenge was to end peacefully, in accordance with the Houston agreements and the Settlement Plan, the only remaining colonial situation in Africa. Further delays could lead to more disappointment. The MINURSO must be strengthened so that the identification process could be finalized and the referendum carried out in a democratic manner.

FELIPE BRIONES, of the International Association of Jurists for Western Sahara, said that processing almost 80,000 appeals against the voters' list for Western Sahara would turn into a second round of identification there. The legal framework could collapse, particularly if the appeals process was orchestrated to deliberately delay the referendum. It was necessary to avoid the legal fraud. The right to appeal should not prolong the difficult situation in the Territory. The MINURSO must resolve the challenge. The time frame of the referendum should not be changed. Before the transition period, some difficult questions should be answered. Now, the international community was witnessing the last act of a bloody and unnecessary drama.

The actions that must take place during the transition period should include the opening up of the Territory, amnesty to Saharawi political prisoners, and nullification of Moroccan laws administering the Territory. Moroccan military forces must be removed and its settlers repatriated. Never had MINURSO commanded more respect than now. It must ensure a fair and democratic referendum. The MINURSO should be able to deal with the problems of the transition period, including the restructuring of the institutions already in place. By signing an agreement, Morocco did not gain the right to occupy the Territory of Western Sahara. Neither did such a signing justify the genocide against the Western Saharan people. What right had Morocco to keep the Territory sealed for many years, poison the wells and force thousands out of their homes? he asked.

The neutrality of the international community must mean acceptance of any results of the public referendum, he continued, but it must not perpetuate the weakness of one of the sides in Western Sahara. The international community must be as active as possible, precisely to keep its neutrality. The MINURSO must be strengthened to ensure a smooth settlement process. Represssion in Western Sahara had become systematic; anti-personnel mines had been installed in the Territory; and as many as 7 per cent of displaced persons had died in the improvised camps. In the future, it was necessary to ensure the electoral process and to guarantee complete freedom of speech, meetings and press in the Territory. Open access to the Territory and freedom of movement were also important. The parties must be committed to ensuring tranquillity and normalcy during the referendum.

He said that, recently, he had been an observer in East Timor. It was clear how the internal situation in Indonesia had been used to enhance the climate of violence and to contribute to the campaign of intimidation. It was not just the police that had not fulfilled its responsibilities, but also UNAMET, which had forced the process to continue without giving any but political guarantees of security.

AHMED SNOUSSI (Morocco), referring to a petitioner’s statement that the appeals of rejected candidates had been denied, said the right of appeal was universal, accepted and long recognized by courts and other institutions. New ideas should not be imposed on the Committee.

Regarding the reference to closed territories, he said the petitioner did not seem to know that members of MINURSO, as well as diplomats, moved freely in those areas. Morocco had not heard such a description attributed to Western Sahara, where complete freedom of movement and security were practised.

He said the petitioner had not mentioned what was going on in the so-called liberated zones and in the Tindouf refugee camps. The indentification process was the subject of a Settlement Plan agreed upon since 1988. There was a code of conduct and everything was being done according to the Settlement Plan.

JEAN-PAUL LECOQ, Mayor of Gonfreville L’Orcher, in France, said that the Identification Commission had completed a daunting task despite delaying tactics by Morocco. The publication in July of the provisional voters’ list had been a real step forward, and the positive role played by the observers from the United Nations and the OAU deserved special tribute.

Mr. SNOUSSI (Morocco), speaking on a point of order, asked the Chairman to remind the petitioner of the Committee’s rules. The Committee was not a court where he could criticize Member States. He should be called to order.

SOTIRIOS ZACKHEOS Cyprus), Committee Chairman, asked the petitioner to bear in mind what the representative of Morocco had said.

Mr. LECOQ said that an unexpectedly large number of appeals from the Moroccan side was threatening to block the drawing up of a full voters’ list in Western Sahara and dangerously jeopardizing the peace plan.

He said that alarming information had emerged regarding the suppression last month of demonstrating students and workers in Laayoune. Shops and houses had been looted by people recruited by Moroccan police to suppress the demonstrations. It was urgent that independent observers be present in Western Sahara. Must there be a bloodbath like the one in East Timor before the Saharawi people won the right to exercise their right to self-determination? he asked.

Question of New Caledonia

ROCH WAMYTAN, President of the Front de liberation nationale kanak socialiste (FLNKS), said that in 1998 the historic Noumea Accord had been signed between the parties in New Caledonia. The people of the Territory massively supported that agreement, which provided for the setting up of new institutions and had led to a renewal of confidence. It had been signed by his party, the Rassemblement pour la Caledonie dans la Republique (RPCR) and France. For their part, the National Assembly and the Senate of France had approved by a majority of 96 per cent an amendment to the French Constitution, thus, integrating into it the key elements of the Accord. Finally, on 8 November 1998, in the referendum on the ratification, about 72 per cent of the population of New Caledonia had agreed to the new evolutionary process, which would lead to the emancipation in 15 years. Preparations had started for the transfer of power.

However, in November 1998, with the drafting of the national French law regarding New Caledonia, real difficulties had arisen, he said. France had insisted on letting all residents of New Caledonia, including those people who could prove that they had maintained residence there for 10 years, vote in the provincial elections of 2004, 2009 and 2014. That was contrary to the agreement that only those who had been residents at the moment of the referendum of 1998 and their descendants could participate in those elections. Contrary interpretations of the Noumea Accord had led to confusion. It was a sensitive point, because immigration policy had been designed for years to change the demographic composition of New Caledonia.

His party appealed to France to respect the spirit and letter of the agreement, he said. An unhealthy climate had been established in the Territory. To the kanak people, it was now clear that decolonization was the only means to forge the unity of indigenous peoples in New Caledonia. Institutional stability was also a real necessity. The kanak people had been colonized, and France’s respect for its obligations should lead to new dialogue and strict implementation of the agreement. France should also facilitate provision of information to the Fourth Committee. France should meet all the conditions to let his people exercise self-determination at the end of the transfer of power.

Question of East Timor

JOSEPH SAUNDERS, on behalf of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, said that an essential precondition for successful decolonization in East Timor was a secure border with Indonesia and a population secure in the knowledge that the campaign of terror had ended. The first danger was a likely effort by army- backed militias to partition East Timor by declaring at least six western districts a pro-integration zone to be controlled by the militias, now operating under a joint command as the Pasukan Pejuang Integrasi (Force of Integration Fighters). Key pro-integration figures included the Governor of East Timor, Abilio Osorio Soares, and militia leader Joao Tavares.

He said that since so many East Timorese had been forcibly expelled and continued to be subjected to attacks and threats by militia groups in Indonesian West Timor, many were likely to have claimed links to pro-integration organizations to ensure their own safety. Refugees must be protected from having to register with any Indonesian agency, given the complicity between some local government officials in West Timor and the militia leaders who had free run of the refugee camps.

A second danger was the continued operations of the Indonesian army in East Timor, he said. While the army had pulled out thousands of troops, many soldiers had been left behind in civilian clothes, including members of the special forces command, some of whom had been captured by the International Force for East Timor (INTERFET). At the moment, the Australian-led INTERFET had only been able to arrest militia members, detain them for up to 72 hours and then hand them over to the Indonesian police, who immediately let them go.

He said it was critical that those responsible for the wreckage of East Timorese lives and land be brought to justice. The INTERFET, the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET), and the future United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor (UNTAET) be provided with clear guidelines and with sufficient resources to provide protection and logistical support for a commission of inquiry proposed by the Secretary-General and to those assisting it.

HAMZAH THAYEB (Indonesia), on a point of order, expressed concern over the negative approach of some petitioners. Their statements had no purpose other than narrow, self-serving agendas. Indonesia would implement the 5 May Agreement and continued to render its full cooperation to the United Nations, while waiting for the next phase of the popular consultation in East Timor.

He said reports had just been received that a member of the International Federation for East Timor, an organization represented in today’s meeting, had been arrested in the Indonesian province of Irian Jaya. The Government of Indonesia had granted him a visa in all good faith to carry out assigned duties, but he had used the opportunity to conduct illegal political activities in Irian Jaya. The International Federation for East Timor was using the Committee to carry out an extraneous agenda against a Member State of the United Nations.

RACHLAND NASHIDIK, Vice-President of the Indonesian Association for Legal Aid and Human Rights, said that the outcome of the ballot in East Timor was a testimony to the magnitude of human rights violations there. It must be emphasized that the Indonesian military and its militia proxies had made every attempt to frustrate the expression of the will of the people and pre-determine the outcome of the consultation by force. The magnitude of the Indonesian’s military defiance of its own President and the international community should also be stressed.

Dili and other towns had been destroyed, he continued, and the East Timorese people who had been able to flee from the extrajudicial killings and deportation to West Timor had taken refuge in the mountains. His organization urged the Committee to take all the necessary measures to save and protect all the East Timorese from any further danger and suffering. His organization was particularly concerned about the fate of some 200,000 East Timorese displaced to West Timor. The United Nations must act immediately to provide for their security and freedom to return to East Timor, as set out in Security Council resolution 1264 (1999).

The incidences of torture in East Timor should be seen as a display of terror for the purpose of intimidating the Indonesian people, especially in Aceh and West Papua, not to aspire to self-determination, he said. For 30 years, the Indonesian army had based its permanent interventions in the civilian politics in Indonesia on the ideology of “Indonesian unity and union”. Of course, East Timor had never legally been a part of Indonesia, but independence of East Timor from Jakarta was a direct attack on the “TNI mode of existence”. The same atrocities as those in East Timor had taken place in Aceh, Ambon and in West Papua, as well. The students and the opposition in Indonesia had also fallen victim to extra- judicial killings and disappearances. For that reason, the independence of the East Timorese people would become a reference for all the people of Indonesia. Together with other human rights organizations and elements of the civil society in Indonesia, his organization welcomed the establishment of an international commission of inquiry to gather reports of crimes against humanity in East Timor.

CHARLES SCHEINER, International Federation for East Timor, expressed concern over the international community’s willingness to give the Indonesian Government veto power over every step of the popular consultation process -- down to the details of humanitarian assistance and repatriation –- and the acceptance of the Indonesian military and police as being legitimately present in East Timor.

He said diplomats talked of sovereignty and cooperation and made excuses for Indonesia’s military and civilian leadership, while just today, Indonesian bureaucrats had blocked the first homeward flight of deportees from West Timor. The INTERFET was in the Territory, but only in a few towns on the northern coast. The majority of East Timorese were hiding in the mountains, still fleeing from areas under Indonesian control.

The United Nations must immediately assume responsibility for security and government in all of East Timor, which must remain united, he said. All Indonesian troops and police should be withdrawn without delay, with transition to East Timorese rule as quickly as possible. The 78 per cent pro-independence vote in the popular consultation, coupled with Indonesia’s trampling of East Timorese human rights, had voided any de facto claim Indonesia might have had.

He said the hundreds of thousands of East Timorese kidnapped to Indonesia must be given immediate international humanitarian and human rights assistance. Appropriate United Nations agencies should assume responsibility for their care and return to East Timor, and journalists, aid workers and others must have unrestricted access to all camps, not just those selected by Indonesia.

JOSE LOUIS GUTERRES, of the National Council of Timorese Resistance (CNRT), expressed his gratitude to the United Nations and all Member States for the speedy resolution of the most recent crisis in East Timor. He appreciated the courage of the Indonesian Government in accepting the popular consultation and its most recent commitment to accept the results of the popular consultation. The CNRT was committed to democratic values and principles and was willing to play its role according to the results of the vote, which had given it legitimacy to deal with the United Nations and the international community. He appealed to the international community to provide assistance to his people and to bring back all the Timorese, including those who were currently in the Indonesian concentration camps.

The majority of the population of East Timor had been forcibly displaced, and almost 70 per cent of homes and public buildings had been destroyed, he continued. Now, it was necessary to construct a free and pluralistic society. All the Timorese had a right to participate in the political life of the country. Those who had participated in crimes against their own people should cooperate with the United Nations commission of inquiry. Barbaric acts of vandalism committed by the Indonesian armed forces had destroyed not only human rights and property, but also the image of their own country and the honour of the Indonesian people. He appealed to all countries and peoples to say clearly to the Indonesian military that they should stop their crimes and give the international commission of inquiry all the necessary cooperation to bring justice and truth to both the East Timorese and Indonesian peoples.

The FALINTIL, the armed wing of the Timorese people, would continue to cooperate with the United Nations, as it had in the past, to bring peace, stability and security to its people, he said. Xanana Gusmao was prepared to meet with the Commander of the multinational forces to make decisions on future cooperation. He urged the United Nations to establish democratic institutions in East Timor as soon as possible. As an independent country, East Timor would integrate in the regional organizations of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the South-Pacific Forum and reinforce its historic and cultural links with the countries of the Portuguese-speaking community. East Timor was also very conscious of the need to establish a new relationship with Indonesia and all other countries.

CARL SENNA, Editorial Writer and Columnist for the Providence Journal newspaper, said now was not the time for political grandstanding by international supporters and partisans of the East Timorese independence movement, when almost a quarter of a million people were in need of emergency assistance. Since Indonesia had indicated its willingness to comply with the United Nations in assisting the refugees, it was time for all concerned to act as swiftly as possible to relieve the privations of the refugees.

He said the results of the 30 August referendum, in which 78 per cent of the East Timorese people had voted for independence, led to new responsibilities. Now, the burden of providing administrative, security and other kinds of relief fell principally on the Member States of the United Nations and the multinational force in East Timor.

Early reports of massacres committed by militias and Indonesian forces appeared to have been greatly exaggerated or false, he said. Nor had the parents of pro-independence leader Jose Alexandre Gusmao been slain as had been reported in September. Reports of human rights violations could not be verified except in an atmosphere of cooperation between the international community -- represented by the United Nations -– and Indonesia. All present allegations of violations, though serious, must be treated as such -- not as proof.

Statements

KATE SMITH (United Kingdom) said that in the last year her Government had continued to take forward its comprehensive review of its relationship with the overseas Territories. Further progress had been made in the efforts to transform the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Territories into a fully modern partnership, based on the principles of self-determination, mutual obligation, freedom for the Territories to run their affairs to the greatest degree possible, and a firm commitment to help the Territories economically and to assist them in emergencies. Among the measures taken was the decision to offer British citizenship and the right of abode to those people of the Territories who did not already enjoy it. Steps had also been taken to encourage good governance in the Territories and promote greater cooperation with international regulators. Measures were being studied to combat drug trafficking and to encourage reform of local legislation in some Territories to comply with the same standards of human rights as the United Kingdom.

For the United Kingdom, the wishes of the peoples concerned were of paramount importance, she continued. Her Government was prepared to consider any proposals about their future put forward by the peoples of the Territories themselves and that had been reaffirmed in the process of consultation with their representatives during the recent review. She welcomed the fact that the General Assembly continued to express the view in its annual omnibus resolution that “ ... in the decolonization process there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination”. Therefore, she regretted that the Special Committee on decolonization continued to apply that principle only selectively. It was a principle enshrined in the Charter and in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

Her country welcomed the Special Committee’s decision to undertake a critical review of its programme of work and methods and the steps taken to reopen a process of informal consultation with the administering Powers. In that context, the Committee and the administering Powers had agreed to consider ways of ascertaining the wishes of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. That might ultimately lead to the future removal of the Territories from the Committee’s list. She was confident that as the Committee explored more directly the situation in the United Kingdom Non-Self-Governing Territories and the views of their peoples, it would become clear that “colonial” status was no longer an accurate description of their situation. She also hoped that the remaining misconceptions, anachronisms and blind spots in the resolutions on decolonization would disappear.

REVIUS O. ORTIQUE (United States) said that over the last 500 years, his country had itself moved from its origins as a collection of colonies to an independent State. It had led the way in the dismantling of empires and the advent of decolonization, paving the way for independence. While there was still a long way to go, sight must not be lost of what had been accomplished.

He said that although the standards applied in General Assembly resolutions 1514 and 1541 were too narrow, his country offered its full support to those countries choosing independence and was proud to work with them on an equal and sovereign basis. For Territories that did not choose independence, however, the United States fully supported their right to a full measure of self-government if they chose it. The right of self-determination included the options of integration and free association, but was not limited by them.

Given the vast variety of people, places and political circumstances, a single standard did not apply to every Territory, he said. The term “non-self- governing” was of questionable applicability to those who were able to establish their own constitution; who elected their public officers; who had representation in Washington; and who chose their own economic path.

He said the mere presence of outside economic and military interests in Non-Self-Governing Territories was not a detriment to the interests of those Territories or their peoples. On the contrary, such a relationship formed the basis of partnership between a region and the outside world. Each case should be considered on its own merits. Investment was not necessarily bad, and economic activities need not constitute a major obstacle to independence.

INAM UL HAQUE (Pakistan) said that in the last debate of the current millennium, it was necessary to review the progress achieved in the implementation of the commitment made by the administering Powers to allow the people of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to exercise their right to self- determination and to identify the future course of action. It was also necessary to reaffirm the international community’s commitment to that noble cause.

While there had been progress in some Territories, including East Timor, Western Sahara, New Caledonia and Tokelau, the progress in the remaining 13 Non- Self-Governing Territories had been agonizingly slow, he continued. Some administering Powers continued to claim that the people of the Territories had accepted the existing arrangements and did not want to sever ties with them. The international community must not relent, until all peoples of the Non-Self- Governing Territories were allowed to freely exercise their right to self- determination as envisaged in the Charter. Administering Powers must cooperate fully with the United Nations by receiving visiting missions; agree to facilitate the decolonization process; foster awareness of the right to self-determination in the Territories; abandon all military activities there; and strengthen economic conditions in the Territories.

Continuing, he expressed deep regret at the denial of the right of self- determination for the Kashmiri people. India had used brutal forces to suppress the indigenous struggle of that people. Kashmir was kept under subjugation by over 650,000 Indian troops. Massive and systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Kashmir by India was designed to break the will of the people. There could not be different responses by the international community to similar situations in East Timor and Kashmir. The process of decolonization would remain incomplete if the inalienable right of peoples was not recognized across the board.

PHYLLIS CHUA (Singapore) said that the inability to meet the year 2000 deadline for decolonization reflected the extreme difficulty and complexities involved, rather than a lack of political will to end colonialism. It was important that come the year 2000 and beyond, the international community persevere and not lose sight of the ultimate goal of a world free of colonialism. Singapore hoped the Special Committee would continue undaunted in its commitment to work closely with the administering Powers to eliminate the last vestiges of the colonial era.

She reiterated the view of ASEAN that decolonization was not merely a set of political measures. It must be accompanied by effective social and economic development efforts. It was, first and foremost, the responsibility of the administering Powers, in consultation with non-self-governing peoples, to promote balanced economic, educational and social development so that those peoples could achieve a certain level of development. At the same time, the United Nations must find ways to increase assistance to programmes in the Non-Self-Governing Territories.

As a small island State with no resources other than its people, she said, her country believed human resource development was vital for economic and social progress. As a former colony, Singapore understood only too well how Non-Self- Governing Territories, particularly small island Territories, struggled to cope with numerous development problems. Singapore believed strongly in sharing the development experience with other developing countries and hoped its technical assistance programmes would enable participants from the Non-Self-Governing Territories to become catalysts for growth and effective agents of change in their own countries. As Singapore progressed, it would expand those programmes.

ROKAN HOMA AL-ANBUGE (Iraq) said that the process of decolonization was far from complete. His country was among the pioneering countries that had supported the Special Committee since its establishment. The Special Committee had proven that its active efforts could bring success in the decolonization process. It should be able to receive direct information about the wishes in the Territories through sending visiting missions and conducting seminars. It was incumbent on administering Powers to support economic development and to preserve the environment in the Non-Self-Governing Territories.

His delegation was concerned over military activities by the administering Powers at the expense of the people under their administration, he continued. Military bases and installations impeded the right to self-determination. He also rejected any attempts to exploit the Non-Self-Governing Territories by conducting nuclear tests, dumping nuclear waste or deploying weapons of mass destruction there. He supported the Government of Argentina in its sovereignty over the Malvinas and confirmed that attempts to transfer settlers to Non-Self- Governing Territories should be rejected.

At the time when the United Nations was leaving no stone unturned to eliminate the vestiges of colonialism, new manifestations of neo-colonialism were appearing, he said. That meant hegemony and control of other peoples. A handful of rich countries were doing just that through economic coercion and imposition of their policies, as well as social and cultural norms. They used their influence in international organizations for their own purposes. Sanctions against Iraq were evidence of such a phenomenon. Those sanctions were genocide aimed at imposing the will of the United States on Iraq. Everybody had a right to development and self-determination, as well as to their own national and cultural identity, he stressed.

* *** *