Decolonization in the Caribbean #17: Militarization and Decolonization
He offered a number of recommendations that the Committee could take up in terms of moving ahead with its mission of eradicating colonialism from the world and assisting the remaining non-self-governing territories. What is refreshing in terms of the seminar overall is the way it mixes scholars and experts with diplomats or government reps. The debate or discussions between country representatives and committee members tends to move in familiar and sometimes frustrating directions. Regardless of what is the substance of the seminar, certain countries tend to make the same points every year, only changing things as their diplomatic relationships change. This means that certain non-self-governing territories get a great deal of attention, usually because of the way sovereign control or rights between nations is being contested, but others are mentioned, are afforded a minute amount of space and then quickly cast aside.
This year there was a bit of urgency in finding some way to break the deadlock over decolonization, where not a single colony has been formally moved to self-government in close to two decades (the last being Timor Leste). At each seminar the experts offer innovative means of accomplishing this, but it is usually lost in the shuffle of diplomatic sparing or posturing.
A case in point this year was with Carlyle's intervention, which addressed a number of problematic issues that are taking place in the non-self-governing territories, which the UN and the C24 should have an interest in, but have long left unattended. The one which has always been an issue in the case of Guam, but is rarely attended to, is the issue of the US militarization or increasing of its military presence in its colonies. The UN resolutions have been very clear since the 1960s, that those who have colonies must not allow excess immigration of militarization to their possessions, as these policies will most likely become severe detriments to decolonization. In Guam, we can see this quite clearly, both in terms of Chamorros becoming a minority, where the US uses the impact of its own policies to justify the erasure of Chamorro rights, and also the increased strategic value, which becomes its own reason not to allow any political status change to the island.
I wrote about this last year in my Guam Daily Post column after a series of discussions in the Commission on Decolonization went nowhere in this very point. International conventions on this issue are clear, but locally it is not something people wish to discuss because of the way it may appear to be anti-American or not patriotic. Internationally other countries don't want to address it because of the way it may inhibit their own ability to militarize their territories or the way it may put them in the cross-hairs of the US diplomatically. But it is still a very important point that must be made repeatedly, as it is not something in the past that cannot be changed. It is something that continues to happen, a convention meant to protect the colonized people of the world, in this case the Chamorros, but is continually ignored.
I've pasted my column here for you to read.
***********************
-->
“To Militarize, or to Decolonize?”
by Michael Lujan Bevacqua
June 1, 2016
The Guam Daily Post
On August 28, 2015 the Department of
Defense signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for their proposed military buildup
to Guam. The military buildup and its impact on Guam has long been a topic of
public debate. What has often been lost in the discussion of socioeconomic and
environmental impacts is what effect a military increase of this magnitude may
have on the Chamorro quest for self-determination and the decolonization of
Guam.
Since 2011 I have been a member of the
Commission on Decolonization, and although many people might think of issues of
self-determination and military increases as being separate, we should think of
them as being more closely connected. The overall mission of the Commission on
Decolonization is to educate the island community on issues of political
status, in particular related to the holding of a political status plebiscite
in which those who are legally qualified will vote on one of three future
political statuses for Guam (integration, free association or independence). But
how does our value as a base affect the willingness or unwillingness of our
colonizer to support us in our decolonization?
The position of the United Nations on
this issue has always been clear, but is scarcely reported locally. In its
resolutions, military increases or strategic military importance should not be
considered as reason to not decolonize territories, but this is generally used
as an excuse to delay or deny action. We can find this point made in their
numerous resolutions on the Question of Guam, such as this one from 1984:
The General Assembly of the United
Nations “Reaffirms its strong conviction that the presence of military bases and
installations in the Territory [of Guam]
could constitute a major obstacle to the implementation of the Declaration and
that it is the responsibility of the administering Power to ensure that the existence
of such bases and installations does not hinder the population of the Territory
from exercising its right to self- determination and independence in conformity
with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
UN Resolution 1514 (X/V) in 1960 called
upon all colonial powers to assist their colonial possessions in moving towards
decolonization. It does not mention specifically military bases or military
training. But by 1964 the United Nations had begun to notice that in
non-self-governing territories like Guam, the colonial power’s military
controlled a great deal of resources and had a great deal of sway over the
destiny of the colonies. Since 1965 the United Nations has approved numerous
resolutions calling upon all colonial powers (including the United States) to
withdraw their military bases as they represent series obstacles to the
exercising of self-determination by colonized peoples.
Bases help to enable to colonial power
to see an island like Guam, not as a place in need of decolonization and
redress, but as a strategically valuable piece of real estate, one necessary
for the projection of military force and the maintaining of its geopolitical
interests. Military facilities help colonial powers to deemphasize the
inalienable human rights of colonized peoples and instead focus on the
instrumentality and necessity of controlling their lands. The expansion of
bases and the establishing of new training areas as outlined in the ROD is
precisely the type of increased military presence the United Nations has long
cautioned against. The United Nations has also cautioned countries like the
United States from using their colonies in offensive wars or actions against
other nations as this could potentially make enemies on behalf of the colony when
it achieves decolonization. To illustrate this point the more that Guam is used
for American military saber rattling in the Asia-Pacific region, the more it
becomes a target for enemies of the United States today and should it ever
achieve another political status.
The Department of Defense is aware of
this concern and has acknowledged the potential for their military buildup to
affect certain Chamorro issues or concerns, such as decolonization in their
military buildup environmental impact studies. But as with most concerns
related to the United Nations and decolonization they have chosen to wash their
hands of this and argue they have no responsibility or obligation in the
matter.
For those who think these matters are
separate or that one doesn’t affect the other, that simply isn’t true. Our
strategic military value to the United States has long affected what we can and
cannot get from the United States. For decades the members of the Trust
Territory of Micronesia negotiated with the United States, a process that led
to the formation of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and three
nation-states that have seats at the United Nations: the Republic of
Belau (Palau), the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of
Micronesia. The United States did not allow Guam to participate in similar
negotiations as its strategic value to the United States as a base, has
consistently led to a denial of this basic human right.
Comments