28 June 2017


"...General Assembly resolution 67/265 of 17 May 2013, which provided for the reinscription of French Polynesia on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, was reaffirmed by the conclusion of a Self-Governance Assessment of the Territory, presented to the Fourth Committee on 4 October 2016, that the Territory did not meet the full measure of self-government;" - U.N. Decolonization Committee Resolution adopted on 22nd June 2017.


Question of French Polynesia

          The General Assembly,

          Having considered the question of French Polynesia,

          Having examined the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2017 relating to French Polynesia,[1]

          Taking note of the working paper prepared by the Secretariat on French Polynesia[2] and other relevant information,

          Reaffirming the right of peoples to self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with all relevant resolutions, including General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 and 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960,

          Recalling its resolution 67/265 of 17 May 2013, entitled “Self-determination of French Polynesia”, in which it affirmed the inalienable right of the people of French Polynesia to self-determination and independence in accordance with Chapter XI of the Charter and its resolution 1514 (XV), recognized that French Polynesia remains a Non-Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter, and declared that an obligation exists under Article 73 e of the Charter on the part of the Government of France, as the administering Power of the Territory, to transmit information on French Polynesia,

          Taking note of the section related to French Polynesia of the Final Document of the Seventeenth Ministerial Conference of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Algiers from 26 to 29 May 2014,[3]

          Expressing concern that 57 years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,[4] there still remain 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories, including French Polynesia,

          Recognizing that all available options for self-determination of the Territories are valid as long as they are in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, on a case-by-case basis and in conformity with the clearly defined principles contained in General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV), 1541 (XV) and other relevant resolutions of the Assembly,

          Recognizing also that the specific characteristics and the aspirations of the people of French Polynesia require flexible, practical and innovative approaches to the options for self-determination, without any prejudice to territorial size, geographical location, size of population or natural resources,

          Reaffirming the inalienable rights of the people of French Polynesia to the ownership, control and disposal of their natural resources, including marine resources and undersea minerals,

          Conscious of the responsibility of the administering Power to ensure the full and speedy implementation of the Declaration in respect of French Polynesia,

          Mindful that, in order for the Special Committee to enhance its understanding of the political status of the peoples of the Territories and to fulfil its mandate effectively, on a case-by-case basis, it is important for it to be apprised by the administering Powers and to receive information from other appropriate sources, including the representatives of the Territories, concerning the wishes and aspirations of the people of the Territories,

          Recognizing the significant health and environmental impacts of nuclear testing conducted by the administering Power in the Territory over a 30 year period, and recognizing also the concerns in the Territory related to the consequences of those activities for the lives and health of the people, especially children and vulnerable groups, as well as the environment of the region, and bearing in mind General Assembly resolution 71/89 of 6 December 2016, entitled “Effects of atomic radiation”,

          Recalling the report of the Secretary-General on the environmental, ecological, health and other impacts of the 30-year period of nuclear testing in French Polynesia,[5] prepared pursuant to paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 68/93 of 11 December 2013,

          Noting that, in February 2017, the administering Power amended the Act concerning the recognition and compensating of victims of nuclear tests[6] in order to allow for the compensation of a larger number of victims,

          Recognizing the need for the Special Committee to ensure that the appropriate bodies of the United Nations actively pursue a public awareness campaign aimed at assisting the peoples of the Territories in gaining a better understanding of the options for self-determination,

          Recalling the admission of French Polynesia as a full member of the Pacific Islands Forum at the forty-seventh Pacific Islands Forum, convened in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, from 8 to 10 September 2016,

          1.       Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of French Polynesia to self-determination, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;

          2.       Also reaffirms that it is ultimately for the people of French Polynesia to determine freely their future political status in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, the Declaration and the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, and in that connection calls upon the administering Power, in cooperation with the territorial Government and appropriate bodies of the United Nations system, to develop political education programmes for the Territory in order to foster an awareness among the people of French Polynesia of their right to self-determination in conformity with the legitimate political status options, based on the principles clearly defined in Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) and other relevant resolutions and decisions;

          3.       Takes note of the statement made by the President of French Polynesia, speaking for the first time in the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), at the seventy-first session of the General Assembly in October 2016;

          4.       Also takes note of the first participation of a representative of the Government of the Territory in the regional seminar, which in 2017 was held in Kingstown, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, from 16 to 18 May;

          5.       Notes the request by a representative of the Government of the Territory at the 2017 Caribbean regional seminar to remove French Polynesia from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and takes note of resolution No. 2013-3, adopted by the Assembly of French Polynesia on 30 May 2013, which repealed the resolution of the Assembly adopted in 2011, requesting the reinscription of French Polynesia on that list;

          6.       Stresses, in this regard, that General Assembly resolution 67/265 of 17 May 2013, which provided for the reinscription of French Polynesia on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, was reaffirmed by the conclusion of a Self-Governance Assessment of the Territory, presented to the Fourth Committee on 4 October 2016, that the Territory did not meet the full measure of self-government;

          7.       Calls upon the administering Power to participate in and cooperate fully with the work of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in order to implement the provisions of Article 73 e of the Charter and the Declaration and in order to advise the Special Committee on the implementation of the provisions under Article 73 b of the Charter on efforts to promote self-government in French Polynesia, and encourages the administering Power to facilitate visiting and special missions to the Territory;

          8.       Regrets that the administering Power has not responded to the request to submit information on French Polynesia under Article 73 e of the Charter since the reinscription of the Territory by the General Assembly in 2013;

          9.       Reaffirms that an obligation exists on the part of the administering Power to transmit information under Chapter XI of the Charter, and requests the administering Power to transmit to the Secretary-General such information on French Polynesia as called for under the Charter;

          10.     Urges the administering Power to ensure the permanent sovereignty of the people of French Polynesia over their natural resources, including marine resources and undersea minerals, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly;

          11.     Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General on the environmental, ecological, health and other impacts of the 30-year period of nuclear testing in French Polynesia,[7] prepared pursuant to paragraph 7 of General Assembly resolution 71/120 of 6 December 2016, and reiterates its request to the Secretary-General to provide continuous updates in this regard;

          12.     Calls upon the administering Power to intensify its dialogue with French Polynesia in order to facilitate rapid progress towards a fair and effective self-determination process, under which the terms and timelines for an act of self-determination would be agreed;

          13.     Requests the Special Committee to continue to examine the question of the Non Self-Governing Territory of French Polynesia and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its seventy-third session.

         [1] Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-second Session, Supplement No. 23 (A/72/23), chap. ___.
         [2] A/AC.109/2017/7.
         [3] See A/68/966-S/2014/573, annex I.
         [4] Resolution 1514 (XV).
         [5] A/69/189.
         [6] Act No. 2010-2 of 5 January 2010 concerning the recognition and compensating of victims of nuclear tests.
         [7] A/72/74.

27 June 2017

Massive profits from France's economic exploitation of French Polynesia revealed at United Nations commitee hearings

"A wide range of current and potential sources of income derived from our territory represents revenue that should be used in the development of our new economic and social model of an independent economy. Instead, such current revenue is transferred to France" -
Richard Arihau Tuheiava, MP



H.E. Richard Ariihau TUHEIAVA
Elected Member
Assembly of French Polynesia

to the Special Committee on Decolonization
United Nations

22 June 2017

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Special Committee,

I have the honour to address you in my capacity as elected member of the House of Assembly of French Polynesia. It has been over four years since French Polynesia has been re-inscribed on its list of Non Self-Governing Territories by consensus General Assembly resolution of 17 May 2013. We reiterate our appreciation for the global support in this effort. We remain, however, disappointed that the administering Power continues to deny its obligations under Article 73(e) of the U.N. Charter to transmit information on our territory.

Mr. Chairman,

Various investigations made since Ma'ohi Nui was relisted on the C-24 list have revealed that the relationship between the administering Power and the territory of French Polynesia is financially abusive since decades, and does not ensure "the paramount interest of the inhabitants of the territory" as reflected in Article 73(a) of the UN Charter. Indeed, the administering Power has kept full control and sovereignty over the natural resources of French Polynesia. Permit several illustrations:

1) Exclusive economic zone (EEZ)

French Polynesia’s EEZ is covering 5 millions square kilometers of ocean. Although the current French organic law allows for the administrative 'competencies' of management and exploration of the natural resources to be monitored by our local elected Government, Provision 2 § 2 of the UN Convention of the Law Of Sea (UNCLOS) appears to acknowledge that full right of sovereignty over our EEZ remains with France as the State Party. The result is France is listed as the 2nd largest maritime power in the world. This rank generates sources of income in terms of international maritime trade, and a significant geopolitical influence.

2) Aerial Surface

Provision 2 § 2 of UNCLOS also extends the right of sovereignty of the administering Power over the undersea & seabed resources as well as the aerial zone above our EEZ. In this regard, France has created two taxes applicable to all its Overseas Collectivities, including in French Polynesia:

   a) The 'Redevance Océanique" fee charged to each airline company whose planes cross our aerial zone, and land at the international airport of Tahiti-Faaa, amount to several hundred millions US dollars per year, collected by the French government.

   b) An "Airport Tax' is being collected by the administering Power on every airline ticket purchased to enter in French Polynesia or to travel out of it.

3) Spatial occupation

Since the 70’s, the French spatial program conducted from its Spatial Base in Kourou, French Guyana has been a tremendous source of income for France. More than 300 artificial satellites cross the spatial zone above the 5 million sq. km2 of French Polynesia’s EEZ every hour. Such spatial activity is a significant business for the administering Power.

4) Seabed Resources

   A significant quantity of world class-quality Cobalt, Platinum and Manganese, as well as Rare Earths, has been be located within the EEZ of French Polynesia. On the matter of ownership and control of these resources, the French Organic Law governing French Polynesia  (Article 14) gives to the administering Power the unilateral authority of controlling the market of 'strategic raw materials".

Mr. Chairman,

   These are but a few examples indicating that the colonial legislation governing French Polynesia ensures the full unilateral authority of France over the natural resources of our territory. A wide range of current and potential sources of income derived from our territory represents revenue that should be used in the development of our new economic and social model of an independent economy. Instead, such current revenue is transferred to France.

Mr. Chairman,

   The second issue I wish to raise is the question of nuclear testing. We note that references to much of the information that we have provided to this Committee and the Fourth Committee in previous years on issues related to the impacts of nuclear testing has been omitted from all relevant U.N. documents. I provide two examples to this effect:

   Firstly, we have provided to this Committee the resolution of the Assembly of French Polynesia adopted on 27 November 2014 that called upon the administering Power to recognize the colonial nature of its nuclear testings in our territory.

Secondly, during the Fourth Committee hearings last year, one of the 18 petitioners Mr. Yves CONROY publicly stated that his deceased spouse has been officially recognized by the French Committee of Compensation of the Nuclear Victims as having been contaminated by one the 46 atmospheric nuclear tests conducted on Moruroa atoll - even as she had never been to the nuclear site. This revelation is scientific evidence that the French nuclear testing could have contaminated the whole population of our country

No reference of these documented facts was made in the U.N. documentation.

Mr. Chairman,

The omission of reference to these and other important developments surrounding the effects of nuclear testing on our people is cause for major concern that the selectivity of information continues to be influenced by the same administering Power that refuses to comply with its U.N. obligations regarding our territory.

We are hopeful that the continuous updates on this item to be included in future reports of the UN Secretary General will be more comprehensive, and consistent with the commitment to decolonization expressed by the new Secretary General in his address to the organizational session of your Special Committee last February.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

26 June 2017

Chagos to be subject of International Court Advisory Opinion

22 JUNE 2017

General Assembly Adopts Resolution Seeking International Court’s Advisory Opinion on Pre-independence Separation of Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius

Minister Cites Need to Complete Decolonization Process as United Kingdom Says It Will Cede Territory When No Longer Needed for Defence

The General Assembly requested today that the International Court of Justice render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius before that Indian Ocean island nation’s independence in the 1960s.
By a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 15 against, with 65 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the text contained in document A/71/L.73, recalling its 1965 resolution in which it asked the United Kingdom not to dismember the territory of Mauritius ahead of its independence in 1968.  It asked the Court whether the decolonization of Mauritius had been carried out in a lawful manner, given the Archipelago’s subsequent separation.
Also by the text, the Assembly asked the Court to advise on the consequences arising from the United Kingdom’s continuing administration of the Chagos Archipelago under international law, including the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.  It pointed, in particular, to Mauritius’ inability to resettle its nationals, including those of Chagossian origin, on the islands.
Speaking before the action, Anerood Jugnauth, Mauritius’ Minister Mentor and Minister for Defence and Rodrigues – also a former Prime Minister and President – said “a vote for the draft resolution […] is a vote in support of completing the process of decolonization, respect for international law and the rule of law”.  Recalling that that he had been accompanied by Chagossians forcibly evicted from their islands following the separation, he emphasized that his country had never accepted the situation, and had not been in a position to consent before gaining statehood, even if the United Kingdom claimed that compensation had been given for its consent.
Describing the Chagos Archipelago as part of his country since at least the eighteenth century, when France had governed it, he said the entire territory had been ceded to the United Kingdom in 1810, and kept intact until the unlawful excision of the Chagos Archipelago on 8 November 1965.  He added that information had come to light about British efforts to manipulate the international community at the time, and to present the United Nations with a fait accompli regarding the separation.  Those facts alone should warrant a fresh look at the situation, he emphasized.
The United Kingdom’s representative called for withdrawal of the draft resolution in order to keep a more constructive path open.  Emphasizing that his country would not consent to having a bilateral dispute submitted for judicial settlement, he recalled that, in recent talks, the United Kingdom’s offers had clearly signalled acknowledgement of Mauritius’ long-term interest in the Archipelago, offering a framework for joint management of all its islands except Diego Garcia, the site of a military base.
He went on to state that United Kingdom had decided against resettling the Chagossians on the grounds of feasibility, cost, defence and security interests.  However, it was implementing a $50 million support package designed to improve their livelihoods.  The focus of Mauritius throughout recent talks had not been on the Chagossians, but rather on transferring sovereignty, he said.  However, since the territory had been created for defence purposes in a joint agreement with the United States, sovereignty would revert to Mauritius when the territory was no longer required for that purpose.
Other speakers voiced respect for the principles of self-determination of peoples, the sovereignty of States and international law.  Those opposing the resolution underlined the need for a consensual bilateral approach to resolving disputes between States, pointing out that the Court did not have mandatory jurisdiction in such issues.  The representative of the United States said the Assembly’s action represented the circumvention of normal procedure, describing it as a “back-door” way to get the issue on the Court’s docket.
Many of those supporting the text prioritized the need to complete the decolonization process.  India’s representative, while conceding his country’s security concerns relating to the Indian Ocean, said that, on balance, it was a matter of principle for India to uphold the decolonization process, as well as respect for the sovereignty of nations.
El Salvador’s representative called for broadening the Court’s jurisdiction, pointing out that his small country lacked large armies and nuclear weapons.  “It is international law that protects us,” he pointed out.
On the budgetary implications of the resolution, a Secretariat official reported that it was not possible to determine an exact figure, but based on recent precedents, the cost of an advisory opinion concerning the Chagos Archipelago could range from $450,000 to $600,000.
Also speaking today were representatives of Congo, Venezuela (for the Non‑Aligned Movement), Angola (for the Southern African Development Community), Egypt, Kenya, United Republic of Tanzania, Chile, Croatia, France, Trinidad and Tobago, Australia, Uruguay, Germany, China, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Portugal, Israel, Brazil, Myanmar and Indonesia.
Before the action on the resolution, the Assembly paid tribute to the late President Baldwin Lonsdale of Vanuatu.  Following a minute of silence and a statement by the Assembly President, the following delegates delivered statements:  Congo (on behalf of the Group of African States), Mongolia (on behalf of the Group of Asia-Pacific States), Romania (on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States), Honduras (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States), Australia (on behalf of the Western European and other States), United States (the host country) and Vanuatu.

20 June 2017

Dutch-appointed Governor in Statia cannot block legislation


Oranjestad (Sint Eustatius) - On June 15th the Court of First Instance for Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba has rendered the verdict concerning the dispute between the two Island Commissioners as Plaintiffs and the Acting Island Governor of Statia as Defendant. The decision of the Court is that the Acting Island Governor is ordered to sign the decisions the Executive Council has agreed upon by majority of votes. These decisions concern the suspension of the Harbour Master, the signing of the Waste Management Agreement, the co-signing of a letter to the Minister BZK and the approval of an official mission by one of Commissioners to The Hague. The Court has rejected the claim concerning the contract with NuStar.

The Court has reached this decision on the following grounds:

The Court has found that it has jurisdiction in this case. The claims of the plaintiffs, in their capacity as Island Commissioners, are admissible. There is also a pressing interest that allows the Court to give decisions in this injunction case.

On the merits of the case the Court has ruled as follows. There is no basis in the Wet Openbare Lichamen Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba for the Acting Governor to refuse to sign the decisions that were taken by the Executive Council with a majority of the votes cast. The Acting Governor is, together with the Commissioners, responsible for a thorough preparation of the decisions. If the Acting Governor is of the opinion that the decisions are not in conformity with the law he (or the Kingdom’s Representative) has the possibility to request nullification of the decision by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. There is no basis in the law for the Acting Governor to refuse his signature.

The Court has not imposed penalty payments on its order to the Acting Governor to sign the decisions. It is of the opinion that it should be a matter of course for the Acting Governor to adhere to court decisions.

The Court has awarded court fees to the Commissioners in the amount of USD 5.000,00.


El boicot ganó el plebiscito y la estadidad va perdiendo adeptos. Eso es lo que evidencian los resultados del llamado “plebiscito para la inmediata descolonización de Puerto Rico”, celebrado este domingo. Según los números de la Comisión Estatal de Elecciones (CEE) sólo el 23% del electorado acudió a votar en el plebiscito de un total de 2.3 millones. En un recorrido durante la mañana por varios centros de votación en el área metropolitana, pudimos ver la poca asistencia y apreciar que la mayor parte de los que se movilizaron eran personas de avanzada edad. 

Los datos hablan por sí solos: la estadidad obtuvo 502,616 votos: 7,779 la libre asociación o independencia: y el estatus terriorial actual, 983, para un total de 518,199 votos. Tanto las organizaciones independentistas y las que promueven la libre asociación, mediante el llamado Junte Soberanista (JS) habían promovido el boicot ante la decisión del Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP) de incluir la alternativa de la colonia, el estatus político actual en la consulta. Por su parte el Partido Popular Democrático (PPD) que favorece la colonia impulsó a sus seguidores a depositar papeletas en blanco o el no acudir a votar e “irse pa’ la playa”.

Aun cuando el gobernador Ricardo Rosselló y los otros líderes de su partido reclamaron este domingo un trinunfo de la estadidad – de las cinco consultas de estatus que se han celebrado en Puerto Rico desde el 1967 al presente- en la presente es cuando menos votos ha obtenido la estadidad. En el plebiscito del 2012 la estadidad obtuvo 44.61 de los votos, lo que representó una reducción a su respaldo de los plebiscitos de 1993, cuando obtuvo un 46.3% y del 1998, cuando obtuvo el 46.5% de los votos. Es decir que los votos de 500 mil de este plebiscito, son menos que los 788 mil votos del 1993, que los 728 mil del 1998 y los 805 mil de 2012. En el 1967 la estadidad obtuvo el 39% de los votos, el ELA el 60.4%.

El analista político Carlos Gallisá, analizó para CLARIDAD que si se compara con las elecciones del 2016, Rosselló obtuvo más votos, 660, 145 mil, más que la estadidad en la presente consulta. Llama la atención además que en las primarias del 2016 entre Rosselló y Pedro Pierluisi votaron 467 mil penepés, unos 33 mil menos que los votos obtenidos en este plebiscito. En las elecciones del 2012 votaron 1.8 millones, ese número bajó en el 2016 a 1.5 millones.

Un fracaso el plebiscito

Por su parte el liderato del Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño (PIP) una de las organizaciones que participó del Junte Soberanista, señaló que el plebiscito constituía un “fracaso para aquellos que se dejaron imponer la inclusión de la opción colonial con tal de impulsar un proceso con un aval federal imaginario, y solo servirá para dramatizar el desinterés y el rechazo a cualquier proyecto de anexión en el Congreso.

La inclusión de la colonia ya rechazada por nuestro pueblo desmovilizó a la mayoría del electorado que respondió al llamado al boicot como repudio a la humillación de proponer la colonia como solución al problema colonial”.

En conferencia de prensa en horas de la tarde del domingo conocidos los resultados el PIP dio a conocer lo que dijo serían sus próximas iniciativas para impulsar la descolonización a través de lo que dijo podría llamarse el “Proyecto por la Soberanía Nacional”.

El primer paso de este proyecto se dijo será reunirse con representantes de diversas organizaciones e individuos independentistas y de la libre asociación para realizar esfuerzos conjuntos en EE UU. La actual comisionada electoral del PIP María de Lourdes Santiago, a pregunta de CLARIDAD sobre este esfuerzo, expuso, que el evento del plebiscito en este caso demostró “ser un instrumento inútil, inservible, la pregunta ahora para los que creemos en la descolonización es, qué vamos hacer en los próximos años y de hecho cuando se comenzó a hablar del proyecto original, aquí se hizo un adelanto importante estableciendo unos espacios, ese esfuerzo hay que retomarlo, solidificarlo”. 

En esa dirección dijo que el PIP se propone promover como un posible mecanismo el proyecto del congresista Luís Gutiérrez, HR 900 (ya radicado) el cual reclama al Congreso que enfrente el tema colonial de Puerto Rico y propone una votación sobre las alternativas soberanas de independencia y libre asciación. Santiago hizo la salvedad de que el proyecto no estaba “escrito en piedra” pero que uno de los fallos del plebiscito actual es que no confronta a los noretamericanos con el problema del estatus. Otro asunto fundamental que señaló es el reconocmiento de que hay más puertorriqueños fuera que en la isla por lo que había que fortalecer los lazos con la diáspora para crear opinión en los medios en EE UU y crear presión política.

En el plano internacional el PIP anunció que denunciará ante los organinismos internacionales a los cuales pertenece -COPPAL y la Internacional Socialista- la farsa de este plebiscito y, por supuesto, su comparesencia a las vistas del Comité de Descolonización de la ONU, el próximo lunes 19 de junio. Sobre este particular a pregunta de CLARIDAD de si consideraba que ante las actuales circunstancias de la celebración del plebisicto, la presencia de la Junta de Control Fiscal, del hecho de que ya no hay prisioneros políticos por la lucha independentista, qué expectativas se puedan tener de la vista ante el Comité: Santiago, apuntó que, el escenario en EE UU es complicado en la medida en que no tiene un gobierno ...busca una palabra con la cual poder describir al presidente Donald Trump, “una caricatura retrógrada, es un escenario difícil”. Aun así atribuyó que el hecho de que haya una JCF lo que constituye un colonialismo crudo en la historia moderna de la humanidad es un elemento distinto para estas vistas.

Por último se destacó que “aquí en Puerto Rico redoblaremos esfuerzos para continuar concertando esfuerzos e iniciativas conjuntas con los sectores que están comprometidos con el logro de nuestra soberanía nacional”.

En tanto otra de las organizaciones que participó del JS, Vamos también calificó de fracaso el plebiscito y destacó que que éste tuvo la participación electoral más baja en la historia de las consultas de estatus, y una clara disminución en el apoyo a la estadidad. “No creemos que esa votación refleje el sentir de los puertorriqueños en torno a las opciones de estatus sino que, realmente nuestra gente no tomó en serio la propuesta de ‘descolonización inmediata’ ni la propaganda fantasiosa que le acompañó”, señaló Justo Méndez Arámburu, coordinador general de Vamos.

La estadidad en los plebiscitos: 

2017: 502,616
2012: 834,191
1998: 728,157
1993: 788,296
1967: 274,312


23 de julio. Gobernador: Roberto Sánchez Vilella (PPD).

Estado Libre Asociado: 60.4%
Estadidad: 39%
Independencia: 0.06%

14 de noviembre. Gobernador: Pedro Rosselló (PNP)

Estado Libre Asociado: 48.3%
Estadidad: 46.3%
Independencia: 4.4%


13 de diciembre. Gobernador: Pedro Rosselló (PNP)


Estado Libre Asociado: 0.1%
Libre Asociación: 0.3%
Estadidad: 46.5%
Independencia: 2.5%
Ninguna de las anteriores: 50.3%


6 de noviembre. Gobernador: Luis Fortuño (PNP)


¿Está de acuerdo con mantener la condición actual?
Si 46.03% No 53.97%

¿Qué opciones de estatus favorece?

Estadidad: 61.16%
ELA Soberano: 33.34%
Independencia: 5.49%

El reclamo de 61.13% que hace el PNP no cuenta las 470 mil papeletas en blanco que depositaron en las urnas los seguidores del PPD siguiendo instrucciones del partido como protesta al plebiscito. De contarse esas papeletas como voto de protesta emitidas, el ELA Soberano tendría 24.32% y el voto en blanco, ambos seguidores del PPD, tendría un 26.04% para un total de 50.36% de 1,804,734 emitidos. La estadidad tendría entonces 44.61% en vez de 61.13%.

Lo anterior significa que la estadidad, en el plebiscito del 2012 al alcanzar 44.61% redujo su respaldo de los plebiscitos de 1993 (46.3%) y del 1998 (46.5%).

Los votos aproximados de 500 mil en 2017 es menos que los 788 mil votos del 1993, los 728 mil del 1998 y los 805 mil del 2012.

Los votos de Ricardo Rosselló en las elecciones de 2016 sumaron 660 mil, 145 mil menos que los obtenidos por la estadidad en el plebiscito de 2012.

El total de electores inscritos para votar asciende a 2.8 millones. En las elecciones de 2012 votaron 1.8 millones, en las de 2016 solo 1.5 millones.

Los 500 mil votos de este plebiscito del 2017 es una tercera parte o 33% de los votantes de las elecciones del 2016. Del total de inscritos (2.8 millones) los 500 mil que participaron en el plebiscito 2017 representa un 22%.

En las primarias del 2016 entre Rosselló y Pierluisi votaron 467 mil, unos 33 mil menos que los votos del plebiscito del 2017.

18 June 2017



Miguel d’Escoto Brocmann

Pocas personas en la vida me han impresionado al verlo por primera vez, como el sacerdote nicaragüense, Miguel D’ Escoto. Aunque le había escuchado en Caguas Puerto Rico, en ocasión del homenaje que se le brindara al líder independentista Juan Mari Brás, mi reacción ante él fue muy diferente. 

Le conocí en su residencia en Managua Nicaragua, en ocasión de mi viaje para participar en una Conferencia de Historiadores del Caribe, en el año 2,000. Al día siguiente de llegar a Nicaragua y una vez acomodado en el hotel, lo primero que hicimos mi esposa y yo fue dirigirnos al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores para buscar información sobre donde podríamos encontrar al ilustre nicaragüense. Nos informaron que lo encontraríamos en su residencia y muy amablemente nos indicaron su dirección. Con muchas esperanzas de poder encontrarlo, nos dirigimos a su hogar.

Al llegar, unas cariñosas empleadas nos dijeron que el padre estaba descansando y posiblemente dormido, porque viajaría a Suiza esa noche en funciones oficiales. Con amabilidad y gentileza nos informaron que le preguntarían si nos podría recibir, a lo que gentilmente accedió. Al entrar a la casa, vimos una impresionante escultura de la Virgen de Hiroshima, con el Niño en sus brazos.

Estaba toda quemada, recordando el horror de la bomba atómica lanzada por Estados Unidos durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Una vez en la sala de la residencia nos encontramos con una gran cantidad de pinturas nicaragüenses que adornaban su residencia.

Cuando llegó el ilustre religioso, nos quedamos paralizados ante su imponente presencia pero una vez comenzada la conversación pudimos contactar su humildad y dulzura. El padre D’ Escoto lo primero que nos preguntó fue sobre la situación de Puerto Rico. Siempre fue solidario con la independencia de Puerto Rico. A solicitud mía y sin pretender impresionarnos, nos habló de las funciones realizadas por él durante el gobierno sandinista, su posición como Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Nicaragua y como asesor de Daniel Ortega. Fue presidente del Sexagésimo tercer período de sesiones de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas.

Fue suspendido como sacerdote por el papa Juan Pablo II, junto a Ernesto y Fernando Cardenal, por su participación en el gobierno nicaragüense y su identificación con la teología de la liberación. El papa Francisco lo restauró como sacerdote en el año 2014.

¿Quién fue Miguel D’ Escoto?

El padre D’ Escoto nació en Los Ángeles California, pero se crió en Nicaragua. Luego estudió para sacerdote en Estados Unidos. Fue el primer sacerdote latinoamericano de la Congregación Maryknoll. Estudió diversas carreras a nivel graduado incluyendo periodismo, pedagogía, ciencias, ingeniería y economía política.

El padre D’ Escoto escribió varios libros entre los cuales destaca Oraciones y Soliloquios, con un prólogo de Leonardo Boff. Tanto mi esposa Rosa y yo guardamos con mucho recelo las copias que nos regaló con una amable y gentil dedicatoria. ¡Que descanse en Paz!

El autor es profesor retirado e historiador.

16 June 2017


Its in the King's hands

James Finies, Nos Ke Boneiru Bek 

"Netherlands cannot covet seat on United Nations (U.N.) Security Council 
while refusing to comply with U.N. Charter Obligations."

With this petition, I , James Finies, ahumble Bonairian requests the King to make a decision that may finalize the decolonization of the islands of the former Netherlands Antilles.

The King will in effect decide whether the United Nations mandated right to a “full measure of self-government” shall prevail, which is the öbject and purpose”of Chapter XI  and hence of the United Nations Charter. The Government of the Netherlands cannot covet a seat on the United Security Council, the highest and most prestigious spot on the world stage, while at the same time treating the Charter with contempt. There are no other options recognized by the UN for these islands. The only option recognized is that of “full measure of self-government”. Embedding, BES islands, Caribisch Nederland etc, etc, are not what United Nations mandated.

With these simple questions the King will decide whther we fulfill the oblectives of Chapter XI and ensure “a full measure of self-government”for each island. Any other approach will be a descent into lawlessness and that we are sure, His Royal Highness will never advocate. For St Maarten this can mean, the end of the discussion about the ethcis Chamber, for Curacao it signals the end of the Governor's involvement in the formation process and for Aruba the end of Financial Supervison. For Bonaire and Statia, the halt of the embedding process and for all islands, the disappearance of the function of Governor as governmental institution, and the declaration that articles 43, 44, 50 and 51 of the Kingdom Charter are no longer applicable or in force as they are in conflict with “a full measure of self-government”.

Finally, article 103 of the United Nations Charter guarantees that this “full measure of self-government”will remain intact. Any law, agreement, protocol, that conflicts or clashes with that right, has to yield, and can find no application!




Ta den man di Rei

James Finies, Nos Ke Boneiru Bek

Hulanda no por codicia asiento den Konseho di Seguridat di Nashonan Uni, mientras ku e ta nenga di kumpli ku obligashonan di e karta di Nashonan Uni.

Ku e petishon aki, ami, James Finies, un humilde Boneriano ta pidi Rei pa tuma un desishon ku por finalisa e dekolonisashon di e islanan di e ex- Antias Hulandes.

Rei lo disidi en efekto , ku lo prevalese e derecho supremo di Nashonan Uni di un “ful grado di propio-gobernashon”, ku ta e öbhetivo I proposito”di e Kapitulo XI I konsekwentemente di e karta di Nashonan Uni. E gobiernu Hulandes no por codicia un asiento den Konseho di Seguridat di Nashonan Uni, e maximo I mas prestigioso puesto riba plataforma mundial, I na mes momento ta trata e karta ku desprecio. No tin otro opshonan rekonose pa Nashonan Uni pa e islanan aki. E uniko opshon rekonose ta di un “full grado di propio-gobernashon” . Ankramentu, di islanan BES, Hulanda Caribense, ets , ets no ta mandato di Nashonan Uni.

Ku e simpel preguntanan aki, rei lo disidi ku nos ta kumpli ku e obhetivonan di Kapitulo XI I segura “un full grado di propio-gobernashon” pa kada isla. Kualke otro aserkamentu lo ta un desenco den anarkia I nos ta sigur ku rei nunka lo promove esey.  Pa Sint Maarten esaki lo nifika final di diskushon riba e  kamber di integridat, pa Korsow ta final di involvimentu di gobernado den e proseso di formashon I pa Aruba final di supervishon finansiero. Pa Boneiru I Statia, suspenshon di e proseso di ankramentu I pa tur isla desaparisashon di Gobernado komo instituto gobernamental, I deklarashon ku artikulonan 43, 44, 50 I 51 di Statuut di reino no aplikabel mas o vigente pasobra nan ta den konflikto ku un “ful grado di propio-gobernashon”.

Por ultimo, e artikulo 103 di Nashonan Uni ta garantisa ku e “full grado di propio-gobernashon”lo keda intakto. Kualke ley, akuerdo, protokol, ets, ku ta den konflikto o ta e pugna ku e derecho aki, tin ku somete su mes I no por tin ningun aplikashon!

15 June 2017

Spain’s Catalonia Declares Date For Independence Vote


President of the Catalan regional government Carles Puigdemont (C) announces the date for a referendum on independence, at the Palau de La Generalitat, in Barcelona, Spain, June 9, 2017/
Photo: AFP

Catalonia will hold a referendum on splitting from Spain on Oct. 1, the head of the region said on Friday, setting the stage for months of confrontation with the central government which says such a vote is illegal and must not take place. 

Previous secessionist challenges in Catalonia – a populous wealthy region whose capital is Barcelona and which has its own language – were blocked by Spain’s conservative government and
the Constitutional Court.

“The question will be: ‘Do you want Catalonia to become an independent state in the form of a republic’,” Carles Puigdemont, president of the government of Catalonia, said.

He said attempts to agree a date and the wording of the question with the Madrid government – which is vehemently opposed to allowing Catalonia to split from Spain – failed and left him with no other choice than moving unilaterally. 

“We have always made very diverse offers and all of them have been rejected without any exception,” Puigdemont said.

Pro-independence campaigners staged a symbolic ballot, organized by volunteers rather than government officials to get around court restrictions, in 2014, months after Scots voted to stay in the United Kingdom. 

Some 2 million people voted in favor of secession in that non-binding ballot, though turnaround was relatively low.

It is not clear how far the legal wrangling may go this time as the Catalan regional government has said it would throw all its weight behind the vote.

Under Article 155 of Spain’s constitution, Madrid has the power to intervene directly in the running of Catalonia’s regional government, forcing it to drop the vote.

This could involve sending in the police or suspending the regional government’s authority to rule.

This is widely seen as a last resort move, however, and many analysts believe the clash will instead culminate in regional elections in Catalonia.