UN debates independence resolution

| 09/12/2011

(Bernews): The United Nations General Assembly  in New York will today [Dec.9] discuss a draft resolution reaffirming the incompatibility of any form and manifestation of colonialism, including economic exploitation, with the international organisation’s charter. Bermuda is on the official list of colonial territories being discussed as well as Anguilla, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Turks and Caicos, British Virgin Islands, Montserrat, St. Helena, Gibraltar and Pitcairn, all under British Overseas Territories. The US Virgin Islands also appears along with Guam and American Samoa [US administered], New Caledonia [French], Tokelau [New Zealand] and Western Sahara [former Spanish colony occupied by Morocco].

The initiative was proposed last month by the Special Political and Decolonisation Committee of the UN with the title “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.”

Go to article

Category: World News

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Libertarian says:

    @10:14 and 19:48 – Despite the special interest backing the United Nations Committee and high probability of corruption therein, Colonialism is still a grave sin that has to be blotted out, completely from modern history. It is like racism or slavery. Colonialism is Inequality!  The Oxford Dictionary puts it like this:-  "The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically."  Is the UK guilty of acquiring full or partial political control over the democracy of the people of its territories?  Yes. Maybe not as full control like they use to, but they do so and/or declare full rule when it is convenient for them to do so. They love to dominate over the people's elected government by policy more than by practice. Do they occupy the territories with settlers?  I say, more than settlers. They have to use spies and say they are fighting crime or establishing good governance in order to maintain their political control. Is there evidence that they are exploiting territories economically?  Why yes… if there wasn't any evidence, I am sure that the UN committee would not have addressed it. To say that the entire committee have addressed Colonialism because there is special interest backers behind them, would be to generalize them all as corrupt, and I think that is an unfair analyses of what many of them are trying to accomplish.

    The UN spokesman states:  "The administering powers should ensure that economic activities and other measures in the territories under their administration will not jeopardise the interests of the peoples of those places, but instead promote development and help to exercise their right to self-determination…  Along the same lines they demand to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable right of the peoples of those Territories to their natural resources to establish and maintain control over future development of those resources."

    In other words, whenever there is economic development that makes a territory in good standing to take care of itself and benefit local investors, there is the mother country, looking out for her so-called "Majesty's Interest" over the territories. Turks and Cacois under Misick (who I admit was involved in corrupt dealings), was at the height of becoming a prosperous destination. Now, after the UK has declared full rule on the inhabitants and foreignors and government leaders, accused of corruption by them, TCI is in a worse state. Its reputation is gone. Some in the UK have advise them to go Independence after they have ruin the financial centre. TCI is back, once again, a dependent colony for mother!  Presently, they are a UK dictatorship and can't vote. You tell me if that is not treating them like second class citizens… no, much worse, like mere natives that are not British citizens!  You tell me that that is not a modern colonial garb with the theme of "corruption" to dissolve TCI's Central Bank and see to its economic demise?!  Yes, TCI has corruption just like anywhere else, but you haveto see their motif to fully understand how they are colonialists.

    The United States was once a group of colonies belonging to the British. Because they "looked down" on them and attempted to rule them without representation in their Parlament, the result was, the American Revolution. Today because of their Independence, America has became a very prosperous nation. Many nations became Independent, but they were not so lucky under the UK. During the process, somehow "vultures" were allowed to take and establish their corrupt holdings on the country. Some countries were drained of their wealth before Independence Day. The governments were established for the politicians and not for the people. Look at Jamaica and see where Independence has her now.  

    Colonialism is still alive today and it leaves its filthy markings on the countries it has abused and left destitute. Don't condemn the entire UN of corruption to cover the awful reality of Colonialism!  What some of the UN members are saying, is simply… people should have rights and democracy, respecting there representaton, and they should have the right of self-deremination without any hindrances or arbitraryacts.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Just watch…the UK will veto this also. The US will support the veto.

  3. Anonymous says:

    It's worth taking a look at some of the countries pushing this 'initiative'.

    Heading the list is Argentina who want to use it to force the people of the Falklands into unwelcome independance. Repeatedly during UN debates the Argentinian delegates have referred to the Falklands as the Malvinas and, despite supporting this move, have never backed off on their claim to sovereignty over the islands.

    Tucked away amongst the rest are Cuba, Syria, China, Russia, Afghanistan, Nicaragua and a bunch of other countries whose track record on human rights is in direct conflict with the alleged aims of this declaration.

    It's typical UN BS and should be regarded as such.

    • Anonymus says:

      Remember, its not colonianism if you're an integrated part of the larger country. Like say Spain or Argentaina. – At least we don't have friends like that in our corner.

    • Young Caymanian says:

      How in the world did the Falklands become British? look how far away the falklands are from British shores,those islands(Malvinas)are next door to Argentina and rightly belongs to that country, i bet you Argentina would not be here today had they trod up to British shores and claim an island as Argentine territory,Colonialism is nothing but cave men greed and rule the world mentality,it's disgraceful and sad demise is inevitable!

      • Anonymous says:

        You should really read history .Argentina was NEVER in the Falklands , at various times it was occupied by the British , the French and the Spanish until in 1833 the Spanish ceeded sovereignty to the British and since 1833 was continually popualted by British citizens . it was only under Peron , a bloody dictator , that it became an issue for the Agregntine government and later under an even more bloody dictatorship in 1982 did it again become an issue when they invaded the islands . Without the invasion and the dictators' defeat democracy might still be a dream for the Argentinians . Incidently more than 30.000 people "disappeared" under the dictatorship so why would the people of the Falkland Isands want to be part of Argentina who now seem more interested in possible oil fields offshore .

        • Anonymous says:

          It's not a sovereignty issue. The population of the Falklands are British and have never been interested in relinquishing their status as a UK OT.

          The only thing Argentina is interested in is the potential oil and gas resources round the islands. The 1982 invasion of the Falklands, which left a legacy of over 20,000 land mines planted in unmapped locations, simply confirmed that their intentions to the local population are entirely hostile.

          The stupid thing right now is that if Argentina stopped messing around and co-operated with the UK both countries could cash in on what would very likely be a major bonanza. With things as they are the UK really needs facilties on the mainland to make exploration of the oil and gas feasible but in 2007, just as it was all about to kick off, Argentina suddenly pulled out of a 1995 agreement to work together on the project.

          The attitude of the present Argentinian administration is getting dangerously close to Galtieri's 1982 policy, which was designed to focus public opinion away from economic problems at home, and reflects growing internal political problems following a series of state intervention measures apparently designed to stop the economy collapsing. It's almost like, after over two decades of stabilty, we have suddenly reverted to hard-line government policies. The only difference from 1982 is that this time the policies are being pursued, possibly prompted by recent events in Venezuela, under a socialist banner rather than a right-wing military one.

          • Radical George Towner says:

            "the only thing Argentina is intrested in is the potential oil and gas resources round the islands"…………hold on dey fa one minute,why you think England is in the Falklands? you think they intrested in shore crabs and sea birds,if the Falkland had no oil potential TRUST ME England and her colonial Masters sisters of France and Spain would have never explore that area,colonialism is nothing but cave men and rule the world mentality…………the sun is down and the clock is ticking!!!

      • Anonymous says:

        Why make a comment if you obviously do not know anything about the subject? By your reckoning the Sister Islands  should be Cuban!

  4. Anonymous says:

    Important to note that "rapid decolonisation" is not the mandate of the entire UN membership, as is misconstrued in the Bermudian extract.  The SPDC is the initiative of a handful, headed up by Kyaw Tint Swe of Myanmar with Helfried Carl of Austria, Eduardo Calderon of Ecuador, Andrej Droba of Slovakia and Kais Kabtani of Tunisia.  Safe to say, these minor league UN members are by no means in touch with the needs and choices of the Cayman Islands people.  The decolonisation committee has been at this for three decades and enjoy less UN support than the International Whaling Commission.  One would think that Kyaw Tint Swe should have a firsthand understanding of the consequences of Independence.  Since independence in 1948, Burma (now Myanmar)  has been embroiled in one of the longest running ethnic civil wars in mankind's recorded history.   

    • Anonymous says:

      So if the U.N. is interested in eliminating the last pieces of colonialism, why is it that the people of American Samoa have voted on with majority consensus, on multiple times to remain part of the United States family of territories and yet, the U.N. has not taken those referendums and votes (voice of the people) into account?  American Samoans have voted multiple times (1) to maintain the status quo as an unincorporated Teritory of the US; (2) not to seek Statehood; (3) not to seek Independence; (4) not to merge together with Independent Samoa and; (5) not to become a commonwealth of the United States.

      I presume the voice and desires of 57,000 American Samoans are not being taken into account and it appears that "Independence" is being forced on them by the U.N.  Where is the justice?  Isn't this a form of U.N. colonialism?