Flagging

Decolonisation

Flagging powers

By Ian Williams

There’s a lot about the United Nations that drives the US Congress to baying distraction its very existence for one thing.

But surprisingly enough for an ex-British colony, one thing that excites them even more is the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation.

Of course, one part of that dislike could be that the committee regularly hears petitioners and reports from American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, Guam and Puerto Rico.

In particular, the idea of having region al seminars that pay expenses for represen

tatives from the non-self-govem ing territories reduces some American representatives to paroxysms of rage. With the usual deference of UN bureau crats to Washington, the UN commissioned a special investi gation into the costs of last year’s seminar, held in the Caribbean. This year, the com mittee’s response was to decide to hold a seminar on decolonisa tion in the Pacific next year.

The committee has played a big role in decolonisation in the Pacific but its mem bers all too often give ammunition to their opponents by having dual standards. For example, it is big on self-determination but only when it produces politically acceptable results. So, the Falkand Islanders’ own views are of no account in comparison with the 160-year-old legal claim of Argentina.

On the other hand, the view of the 60 or so people on Pitcairn, who have not expressed the slightest interest in changing their present position, are of paramount importance. Of course, it is easier to beat up on a ‘traditional’ colonial country like

Britain, even though London would dearly like to shuffle off its final responsibilities in most parts of the world if only it could thrust independence on its remaining terri tories.

Apart from a general disre gard of the possibility that south ern countries could also be colo nialist, there is a reluctance to tweak the beard of powerful neighbours. Last year, for exam ple, PNG Ambassador Utula Utuoc Samona, who is also chairman of the committee, caused a stir by declaring that “the presence of the armed forces of Indonesia is a very positive factor for efforts to raise the well-being of the Timorese peo

pie”, while on a visit to East Timor. Since many petitioners and governments consid er that one of the Indonesian army’s achievements was to lower the number of living Timorese by one-third, this under standably raised some controversy.

The ambassador invoked the theologi cal subtleties of diplomacy to explain this away, claiming that he was speaking on behalf of Port Moresby rather than in his chairman’s capacity. This year, petitioners agreed that, in fact, he was very fair and

supportive to pro-East- Timorese petitioners in the face of a barrage of Indonesian protests. One of the petitioners.

Professor Roger Clark of International Law at Rutgers commented, however, that two-thirds of committee mem bers themselves were absent during the East Timorese issue, in contrast, for example, with the relatively full turnout for the Falkland

Islands. He also supported the continuation of the committee in the face of perennial pres sure to disband it, usually from the colonial powers put in the dock there. “The demise of the committee would quell the East Timor issue at the UN,” he said, adding that he wished the Pacific had been more forthright in getting, for exam ple, the other French Pacific

territories enlisted. Ironically, PNG was a major mover in getting New Caledonia inscribed on the list of colonised territo ries. There is little doubt that the continued

intemational exposure of the Kanak case in the committee has helped move Paris to a more reasonable position. Discussion on New Caledonia has been held over until

next year when the Matignon accords click in - or not.

However, it is instructive to compare the progress made by the Kanaks with the relative silence surrounding the French Polynesian territories which a combination of Pacific inac tion and French adroitness have kept off the agenda. No one wanted to upset Paris on this issue. On the other hand, the committee now attracts members such as Iran and Cuba who have no compunc

tion in tweaking the American Eagle’s feathers. The issue of Guam has had a steadily higher profile in the UN and the US Congress, as the Chamorros have been comparing their position with other US Pacific territories.

Apart from self-determination, a major issue is the preservation of traditional property rights of Chamorros, especially over the vast areas currently in use by the US military. Laura Torres-Souder, repre senting the governor of Guam, lamented the time taken by successive US adminis trations to move on the territory’s propos als for regularising its status as a Commonwealth. In particular, she pointed out that US immigration laws in force had allowed an influx of 10,000 immigrants with permanent status. She did not say it but, clearly, the example of New Caledonia shows the dangers of a colonial power allowing the indigenous inhabitants to be swamped by newcomers. Her compatriot, Mark Forbes, the majority leader of the

Guam legislature was even more

forthright. The legislature and

the governor were elected by the people of Guam, but their deci sion could be overridden by the US government, and while they could send a “congressman” to Washington, he had no voting rights there. When the Pacific seminar does take place next year, there is little doubt there will be a vociferous Chamorro presence, regardless of

Washington’s displeasure.

It will be interesting to see whether rep resentatives from the uninscribed French territories are allowed a voice. ■

UK: It is easier to beat up on a 'traditional’ colonial country like Britain, even though London would dearly like to shuffle off its final responsi bilities in most parts of the world

France: It is instructive to compare the progress made by the Kanaks with the rela tive silence surrounding French Polynesian territories, which a combination of Pacific inaction and French adroitness have kept off the agenda

US: Apart from self-determi nation, a major issue is the preservation of traditional property rights of Chamorros, especially over the vast areas in use by the US military