The Reinscription of French Polynesia to the List of Non-Self-Governing-Territories Implications for Alaska and Hawaii By Leon Siu 21 May 2013 On May 17, 2013, the 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution (A/67/L.56) to reinscribe French Polynesia to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories (NGST). This has significant implications for Alaska’s and Hawaii’s efforts toward reinscription for decolonization. SIMILARITIES TO THE SITUATION OF FRENCH POLYNESIA: 1. In 1946 French Polynesia was inscribed by the United Nations as a NSGT. • Alaska and Hawaii were also inscribed as NSGTs in 1946. 2. In 1986 French Polynesia was removed from the NSGT list. • In 1959, Hawaii and Alaska were removed from the list 3. Removal of French Polynesia from the NGST list, was a unilateral action by France that deprived the people of the right to self-determination and a proper opportunity for decolonization. • Alaska and Hawaii were removed from the NGST list by the USA using deceptive, unilateral reports to the UN, resulting in depriving the people of Alaska and Hawaii the right to self-determination and the opportunity for decolonization. 4. Inactivity by the UN Special Committee on Decolonization caused the situation to languish, contributing to the prolonged denial of the right to self-determination for French Polynesia, Alaska and Hawaii. IMPLICATIONS for the ALASKA/HAWAII ARTICLE 15 PETITION The reinscription of French Polynesia should have a favorable impact on the ICERD Article 15 Petition that Alaska and Hawaii filed in Geneva with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and presently being considered by that committee. The Article 15 petition seeks an examination of the process that led to General Assembly Resolution 1469 of December 12, 1959, that removed Alaska and Hawaii from the NGST list. It is highly possible that if such an examination took place, it would reveal such serious flaws and irregularities in the decolonization process reported by the USA that it would cause the UN General Assembly to reinscribe Alaska and Hawaii on the NGST list, in essence removing the US’ claim of sovereignty over Alaska and Hawaii. In order for the re-examination to take place, the Article 15 Petition awaiting action by the CERD would need to be transmitted from the CERD to the appropriate UN body, most likely the Third Committee of the General Assembly, which would then refer it to the proper body to conduct the re-examination. Right now, the immediate, critical task for Alaska and Hawaii is to persuade the CERD to transmit (pass) the Article 15 Petition to the next level. We have come to understand that along with the volumes of documentation, exhaustive reports and interventions filed particularly over the past seven years, a direct request from at least one UN Member State (country) requesting the CERD to transmit the Article 15 Petition, would assure its movement in the proper direction. The same countries that submitted the resolution for French Polynesia are the ones we have been approaching to request that CERD transmit our petition. Hopefully, with the success of the reinscription of French Polynesia, these Pacific Island states would be able to assist Hawaii (and Alaska) as well. SHIFT IN UN POLICY? The action by the UN General Assembly to reinscribe French Polynesia to the list of non-selfgoverning territories might be signifying a breakthrough in the UN’s attitude and policy toward reactivating decolonization. 1. This is the first reinscription since 1986 when New Caledonia was re-listed. The French Polynesia action is a “real-time” event that renews hope for others striving to be inscribed or reinscribed as NGST. It appears that attitudes are changing, improving the chances for independence for Alaska and Hawaii, Rapa Nui, West Papua, Maluku, Malvinas, Jammu and Kashmir, and others under ‘captive-nation’ circumstances. 2. This GA action brings the UN’s decolonization process out of mothballs, possibly signaling a policy shift to make decolonization an active pursuit rather than a passive maintenance program. 3. The success of this initiative led by small Pacific Island nations raises the stature, credibility and effectiveness of those island states and organizations such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group and the Pacific Islands Forum. It confirms that Pacific Island States can initiate and marshal the passage of a significant policy item. 4. Even though France, the United States, Great Britain, Germany and a few others opposed the resolution, the other UN Member States overwhelmingly supported this Pacific Islands-led initiative. 5. The resolution introduces a peaceful, orderly style of settling disputes — a Pacific/ Polynesian-style. Perhaps it will be welcomed as a model for decolonization instead of the all-too-often conflict, violence, warfare and bloodshed...
Posted on: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:46:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015