Decolonisation process hailed a success
 |
| The judicial conference in Madang. |
The process of decolonisation taking place in Tokelau has
been hailed as a success for United Nation’s Special Committee on
Decolonisation.
The Special Committee of 24 met in Madang, PNG, last month
(May) for a three-day Pacific Regional Seminar.
The annual seminar was hosted by the government of Papua New
Guinea within the framework of the Second International Decade for the
Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010) and focussed on practical steps to
advance the decolonisation process in the Non-Self-Governing Territories of the
Pacific region.
The case of Tokelau, which was making progress towards
decolonisation, was heard with perspectives from the administering Power, New
Zealand; the Ulu-o-Tokelau as well as views of experts.
The reports highlighted the unified approach adopted by all
parties and the importance of empowering the people of Tokelau. Delegates
congratulated New Zealand, Tokelau and the United Nations Special Committee of
24 on successful triangular partnership.
Particular mention was made of a Trust Fund set up to
provide for the territory’s future developmental needs and the Special
Committee was asked to look at ways of assisting Tokelau to publicise and
promote the Fund.
Also highlighted was the process adopted by the New Zealand
Government, where the people of Tokelau have a separate department dedicated to
their process of the decolonisation. This provides them with a “one stop shop”
regarding any matter. Such a process was commended as a mechanism for other administrative
powers to use.
Other Pacific Island’s seeking self-determination have
however not been successful as Tokelau.
Guam’s representatives for the Colonised Chamorro Coalition
and the Guam Commission on Decolonisation – two non government organisations
pushing for self-determination in Guam - outlined some of the challenges they
faced in moving towards self-determination saying the current relationship with
administering power United States was problematic.
Executive Director for the Guam Commission on
Decolonisation, Eddie Benavente, said he firmly believed that the process of
self-determination in Guam would be enhanced by the administrering power’s
overt support of the self-determination process.
Chairman of the colonised Chamorro Coalition, Rufo Lujan,
cited immigration as an area of great concern, where the administering power
controls the process.
Increased militarisation of Guam was also a concern
expressed by Mr Lujan. He believed that it makes the island a prime military
target for pre-emptory or retaliatory attacks.
The push for
self-determination by the people of Guam is being spearheaded by
non-governmental organisations, Mr Lujan said.
The representative said the proposed November referendum in
Guam could be delayed because of difficulty in registering voters.
The importance of a colony’s healthy relationship with its
administering power was also raised in a statement from Sarimin Boengkih,
representative from the Agence Kanak de Developpement, in Noumea, New
Caledonia. Mr Boengkih listed concerns over the strategies of the Territory’s
administering Power, France. In particular, immigration plicies, which resulted
in an influx of people with voting rights, have changed the make-up of the
population in New Caledonia and, thus, the influence of the Kanak.
He referred to the Noumea Accord currently being
implemented, which has created three provinces of New Caledonia, and is seen as
an important step towards self-governance as the Government of France was
engaged in a process of transferring the French State powers to New Caledonia.
Mr Boengkih discussed problems that might arise should France decide to call a
referendum on self-determination to be organised separately in each province.
He also raised concerns regarding use of natural resources, in
particular mining in New Caledonia, and divisions and marginalisation of
indigenous populations. The implications of military occupation in New
Caledonia were also mentioned.
A representative of France, observing the Seminar, said that
racism was a concern his government would need to look into regarding the
disparity of the New Caledonian population.
Meanwhile, the case of American Samoa generated significant
debate however, regarding the United Nations listing of Non-Self-Governing
territories. The representatives of American Samoa called on the Special
Committee to keep in mind the direct wishes of the people of such territories.
According to the representative, as an unincorporated United States territory,
the people of American Samoa were satisfied with their partnership with the
United States and looked forward to enhancing that partnership in the future.
American Samoa’s questions over its UN listing created a
debate with the representative calling for written comments from the Committee
of 24 outlining steps for the Territory to be de-listed.
Five experts also highlighted the implications of
self-government in the Pacific region.
Dr Penelope Schoeffel outlined the concerns of most Pacific
Islanders regarding the ‘price’ of independence.
She said Pacific people deeply desire the blessings of
modernity such as good health services and schools, public order and justice,
good housing, efficient utilities such as power and water, and well paid work.
However, Dr Schoeffel said most Pacific islanders can not
pay the price required to enjoy these benefits in their home islands because
the price is cultural transformation.
She argued that sticking to traditional institutions often
works best in island states because their geographical situation means there
are often no realistic prospects for market-based growth.
Social and economic indicators are higher in Pacific states
and territories with empowered indigenous majorities who enjoy the benefits of
strong links to a metropolitan power, and few of the disadvantages, she said.
Dr Schoefell used the examples of the French Pacific
territories where New Caledonia and French Polynesia enjoy high gross domestic
product (GDP), with France subsidising both territories.
However, Australian expert Nic Maclellan said that
significant forces in some non-self-governing territories do not want
independence because they do not understand the decolonisation process. He
suggested that the level of funding provided by administering powers played an
important psychological and material role in setting attitutdes to
decolonisation.
Mr Maclellan said that within the Pcific, other material or
political issues could also affect engagement in the decolonisation process.
For example, social factors such as continuing alliance towards highly
localised family, kinship, religious or regional groupings, rather than the
abstacted concept of “the nation”. He also cited the continuation of aid flows
as a concern for non-self-governing territories considering independence.
Using Guam and New Caledonia as examples, he said the
indigenous populations of both territories have been made a minority through
the process of colonial settlement and migration. Military build-up in
non-self-governing territories was another point he raised, using a case study
on Guam.
Using the concerns of no-self-governing territories, he
called for a more creative approach to decolonisation into a regional context.
He said there should be invovlement of non-self-governing territories in
regional processes in development, environment and trade, and the evolving
policies of regional intergovernmental organisations towards the territories.
Ends
No comments:
Post a Comment