Governance, Dependency and Future Political Development in the Non-Independent

Caribbean

A Paper for Presentation to the Fourth Annual SALISES Conference, Sir Arthur Lewis
Institute of Social and Economic Studies, University of the West Indies, Barbados, West
Indies, 15 - 17 January 2002.

Carlyle Corbin

Introduction

Since the independence of Namibia and the thaw of the Cold War at the beginning of the decade
of the 1990s, most of the remaining non-self-governing territories (NSGT's), self- governing territories
(SGT's) and integrated territories (IT's) are small island developing
countries in the Caribbean and Pacific.
While the self-governing and the integrated territories in the hemisphere, on the surface, might
present to some the appearance of having achieved their political status goals, the people of the NSGTs,
have not yet taken a decision on achieving a legitimate political status through an accepted act of self-
determination. Over time, this has resulted in the development of sophisticated arrangements of
colonial/dependency governance which fall short of the minimum requirements of democratic self
governance as defined by the international community, or by any other informed objective standard -
notwithstanding a prevailing view held by many that the people of the territories are pleased with the
status quo arrangements, despite their inherent democratic deficiencies.

Defining the Non-Independent Caribbean

A functional definition of the non-independent Caribbean can be found in the context of

international principles specifically defined in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV)
of 1960. Accordingly, the Non- Independent Caribbean (NIC) can be grouped into the three
categories of non-self-governing territories, self-governing territories, and integrated territories. 1/

Non-Self-GoverningTerritories

Non-self-governing territories (NSGT's) are actually referred to in the United Nations Charter,
specifically Chapter XI, Article 73 in which they are described as "...territories whose people have not
yet attained a full measure of self-government... ". Section 73 (a) of the Charter emphasizes the
importance of ensur(ing), with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, social
and educational advancement…”

Currently, seven of the ten non-independent Caribbean countries (NICCs) are listed by the
General Assembly in the non-self-governing category, and. were so included by their respective
administering authorities who placed them on the original list of 72 such territories, pursuant to U.N.
General Assembly Resolution 66 (1) on 14th December 1946. 2/
!
According to a U.N. Report commemorating thirty years of the (Decolonization) Declaration,
eight of the original 72 territories became independent between 1946 and 1959, while transmission of
information to the U.N. by the respective administering authorities was discontinued with respect to 21
others, either by resolution of the General Assembly or by unilateral action without the subsequent
approval of the General Assembly. 3/

With the approval in 1960 of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), the political
options of independence, free association, and integration were identified as the recognized status
options for a territory to have assumed a full measure of self-government. Thus, after 1960, other
territories were removed from the U.N. List of NSGT's based on this defined criteria, including a number
of Caribbean non-independent countries, mostly via independence, but also via free association, as in the
case of the Netherlands Antilles. Of the presently remaining 17 NSGT's on the list, seven are in the
Caribbean and five in Asia/ Pacific. 4/

These territories are the subjects of U.N. review pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.N. Charter, and
the constitutional and socio-economic advancement of these territories is examined
annually by the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA).

Self-Governing Territories

As the second set of non-independent countries, the self-governing or freely associated country
is categorized in Principles VI and VII of Resolution 1541 (XV) as "...a territory which has reached a
full measure of self-government, " and which is associated with an independent state, "free to modify" its
status with the "right to determine its own constitution in accordance with due constitutional processes.
"-5/

Currently, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are the self-governing territories in the Caribbean,
having attained a free association arrangement within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Puerto Rico, originally conceived as a self-governing model of free association as a result

of constitutional changes in 1952, was removed from the U.N. List of NSGT's in 1953 via General
Assembly Resolution 748. This action removing that territory from formal NSGT status was taken
however, some seven years prior to the approval of the internationally-recognized
definition of free association as contained in Resolution 1541. 6/

Although not presently on the U.N. List, an extensive annual debate is held in proceedings of the
U.N. Special Committee on Decolonization as to whether the current model of Free associated state
(estado libre asociado) in Puerto Rico is sufficiently autonomous to meet the modern definition of free
association as defined in Resolution 1541, or whether it should be listed as an NSGT. The U.S. Congress
under the Republican majority, coinciding with the pro--integrationist New Progressive Party
government in Puerto Rico, has effectively re-defined what it regards Puerto Rico to be, and has taken an
approach, essentially consistent with United Nations principles. U.S. Congressional legislation
introduced in March of 1999 by the full U.S. House of Representatives is indicative of this new thinking.
7/

Table I. Non-Independent Countries as defined by United Nations Principles

Non-Self Governing Territories Self-Governing & otber Former Territories that were
(as listed by U.N.) Territories not listed by U.N. integrated (for comparison
purposes only)

Caribbean/Atlantic:

Anguilla Aruba Guadeloupe & dependencies

Bermuda Netherlands Antilles Martinique
British Virgin Islands Puerto Rico (a) French Guiana
Cayman Islands Greenland
Montserrat Faroe Islands
Turks & Caicos Islands
U.S. Virgin Islands
St. Helena (South Atlantic )

Asia/Pacific:
Niue
American Samoa Northern Mariana Islands (a) Hawaii
Guam Cook Islands Alaska
Kanaky (New Caledonia) Micronesia (Federated States) (a)
Tokelau Rapanui (Easter Island)
Timor Lorasae (East Timor) Marshall Islands (a)
Belau (Palau) (a)
Te Ao Maohi (French Polynesia) a/
Wallis and Futuna (a)

a) The self-governing nature of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands vis a vis their respective
commonwealth' arrangements with the United States has sparked increased interest from scholars due to
the continual unilateral authority of the U.S. Congress to legislate for those 'self-governing' territories
under the "Territorial Clause" of the U.S. Constitution which gives the U.S. Congress the right to "make
all needful rules for territory or other property of the United States. " The limitations of sovereignty
exercised in the Fed States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Belau pursuant to their 'sovereign , free
association agreement with the U.S., are also being examined in view of the voting records of these
associated states at the United Nations. The unilateral removal of French Polynesia and Wallis and
Futuna from U.N. non-self-governing status without U.N. review is a further area of debate as to whether
they met (and presently meet) the conditions of full self-government, while some territories like Rapanui
(Easter Island), administered by Chile, are also not considered as appropriate for discussion in the self-
government debate -perhaps due to the fact that Rapanui is administered by a developing country. The
Western Hemisphere also includes the (unlisted) territories of Greenland and the Faroe Islands under the
jurisdiction of Denmark, and which were also formerly under review by the Organisation of American
States (OAS).
 Integrated Territories

The integrated territories, so designated because of their incorporation into another country, is
the third set of territories in the non-independent Caribbean. The integrated nature of these territories
into a cosmopolitan country designates them as integral parts of an independent state, and therefore
permits only limited international recognition separate from the larger country into which it is integrated.

An integrated status must conform to Principle VIII of UNGA Resolution 1541 which calls for
the integration to be "on the basis of complete equality" with "equal status and rights of citizenship, and
equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective participation at all levels of the
cosmopolitan country .

At this time, the French Overseas Departments of Guadeloupe and its dependencies, Martinique,
and French Guiana are the only territories in the Caribbean which qualify under this definition. It can be
recalled that the territories of Alaska and Hawaii, acquired by the United States, were also listed as non-
self-governing territories upon their acquisition, but were removed from the U.N. list when they became
integrated" as constituent states of the United States, granting these territories full equality.

Governance and Political Equality

Adherence to the spirit of the principles of complete and absolute political equality is important
to the development of self-governance and, correspondingly, to constitutional advancement. This focus
which has been brought to the debate on decolonisation at the United Nations by the Caribbean
diplomatic corp has contributed immensely to countering the view that the territories have magically
achieved full self-government, without any fundamental change in the dependency arrangements.
Reference to several existing dependency models is instructive.

United Kingdom Model

Reference is made to recently announced changes in the British dependency model in the
Caribbean where the form, but not the substance, of the dependency relationship was changed.
8/

Hence, the former "British dependent territories " were re-named as "British overseas
territories, " with the overall authority of the British Government remaining intact, and in some instances
strengthened. Unilateral decisions are made for those territories through the mechanism of "order in
council" by the British-appointed governors, who also have reserved powers according to the
constitutions of those territories written by the administering power after "consultation with" the people
of the territories. The process of amendment of the constitution by the people of the territories exists in
principle, but the final determination on whether such amendments are accepted lies with the United
Kingdom. Yet these politically dependent arrangements are projected as legitimate forms of self-
governance, and acceptable to the people of the territories themselves.
 Hence, the statement of the United Kingdom representative to the Fourth Committee of the U.N.
General Assembly in October, 1998 who argued that:

"...in no cases have territories remained British through coercion or repression (or) have been
denied the opportunity to make their views known.”

It is unclear, however, by what method the people of the British territories had chosen to remain
in their present dependency status, since most do not have provisions for referenda in their constitutions,
and those that do have not utilised this mechanism to address political development issues. Of the British
territories, only Bermuda has had a political status referendum in recent years (1995), and with only the
option of independence on the ballot, it hardly sufficed as an act of self-determination with a full range of
acceptable options, i.e. the inclusion of free association and integration. Further, while general elections
have been held, elected representatives in the British territories have consistently argued that these polls
are contested on economic rather than political status issues, and that election results should not be
interpreted as a referendum on a political status preference.

The British policy review on the territories beginning in 1998 featured prominently in the
aforementioned U.K. statement to the Fourth Committee. The policy emanating from the review,
however, differs from the French and New Zealand actions of systematic devolution of power to their
territories of New Caledonia and Tokelau, respectively. Instead, the U.K. proposal has extended a form
of citizenship to the residents of the territories that would permit their right of abode in Britain but grant
little other political powers enjoyed by other British citizens, including voting rights and representation
in the legislative body of the cosmopole - essential elements of full civil and political rights under the
International Covenant ojn Civil and Political Rights. In return for this partial and unilateral political
integration, further controls are being extended to the offshore financial sector of the territories by
bringing this sector under European Union, Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), and Financial Action Task Force (FATF) guidelines.

Other U.K. and European Union laws would be applied as well, particularly in the sensitive areas
of what are regarded as "human rights" where unilateral changes in the constitutions of these territories
have already been imposed. Corporal and capital punishment laws earlier had been amended unilaterally
by the British in previous years.

Dependent territory representatives in the Caribbean have all expressed deep concern over many
elements of the policy which do not address longstanding requests by the elected territorial leadership for
the devolution of reserved powers from the London-appointed governor to the elected government,
consistent with democratic principles. Thus, the argument continually expressed by the U.K.
representative in successive United Nations debates that "the colonial era is over, and that colonialism as
a practice is dead" contrasts deeply with the objective reality that unilateral authority still remains the
basis of the present status of the Caribbean territories, rather than the high degree of democratic self-
government" being projected to the international community by the very States which administer
territories.
 It is only due to the conspicuous absence of the views of the elected governments of many of the
territories in U.N .deliberations on decolonisation that the picture of 'constitutional contentment'
continues to remain unchallenged.

The UnitedStates Model

International principles of governance also have relevance to the U. S. territories in the

Caribbean. The case of the U.S. Virgin Islands is especially relevant in the wake of the inconclusive
political status referendum held in 1993, and the present state of 'constitutional dormancy' following the
societal shock in the aftermath of the territory's first and only political status referendum which ended
with an inconclusive result due to an insufficient percentage of participating voters. 9/

Unlike Bermuda, however, where only one political option was before the voters, in the USVI
exercise there were seven options -many indistinguishable to the voters and those responsible for
educating them, leading to significant confusion. The result - or rather lack thereof - was more a function
of the lack of awareness of the political options within the community, rather than an acceptance of the
status quo dependency arrangement - but that has not prevented the failed referendum from being
projected as a vote in favour of the status quo, even if the present political arrangement only prevails by
default.

This strategy was articulated, in a philosophical sense, by the U.S. representative before the U.N.
Fourth Committee in October 1998 when he echoed the U.K. perspective on the efficacy of applying the
term 'non-self-governing' to many of the remaining territories. He argued that the phrase was "not wholly
applicable to residents of a land... who are able to establish their own constitution, who elect their
territory's public officers and who have a voice in the US. Congress. "
Of course, such a partial description of conditions in the U. S. territories in particular fails to
acknowledge the very real limitations of the political rights of these very same residents of U.S.
territories that caused their being listing as non-self-governing in the first instance.

In this connection, a 1998 report of the United Nations Association of the (US.) Virgin Islands
(UNA VI) pointed to a number of clear limitations to the present political relationship in the U. S.
territories that make for one of political inequality. Such areas included a lack of voting rights in the
U.S. political process, the reality that any territorial constitutions that would be written must comply
with the unilateral application of the laws of the dominant country in which the territorial residents
have no voting representation, and the absence of even this limited type of constitution in several U.S.
territories, are but a few indications of the unequal political relationship where the vested authority of
the territory is not with their people, but rather in the U.S. Congress in which the territories have no
vote."10/

The 1998 U.S. statement to the U.N. went further to call for the majority of the territories to be
"dis-inscribed' from the U.N. list of non-self-governing territories, although nothing in the argument
could support such an action based on any acceptable criteria of self-determination. Instead, many
delegations expressed concern that the overall policy goal seemed intent on re-defining the present
arrangements as "self-governing" for the sole purpose of removing the nuisance of international
oversight on decolonisation. This can be illustrated in the projection of a clear U.S. policy shift by
questioning the continued use of the three alternatives of political equality since, as it was stated, the
people 'prefer the current arrangement and (have) .freely select(ed) that status. " In this vein, it must be
re-emphasized that the 1993 referendum in the U.S. Virgin Islands yielded inconclusive results, so it
cannot be inferred from that exercise that the people "like it so. " While this very well may be the case -
as it relates to the U.S. Virgin Islands - it has yet to be confirmed it in a democratic process of popular
consultation. In any event, it appears, in a very real sense, to be a function of the lack of awareness of the
people of just what constitutes self-determination and self-government. This is a feature which
characterizes the level of awareness of many in the Caribbean and Pacific non self-governing territories.

This policy shift is significant in that U.S. policy had historically supported the relevance of the
three political options of equality - until the last several years - as a means of using the options of
integration and free association as a counterweight to previous U.N. emphasis on independence. Since no
constitutional changes have taken place in any of the U.S. territories to meet an objective criteria of self-
determination, it is a concern that the new U.S./UK position, if endorsed by U.N. member states, would
leave the territories in a perpetual state of political and constitutional dependency. So far, the
international community has maintained its stance in support of international principles of self-
determination, but in the absence of a learned voice from the territories themselves, it is unclear how
long this support can be sustained especially in view of the diplomatic pressures brought to bear on U.N.
member States in the developing world whose voting records and policy statements are subject to
heightened scrutiny, and often linked to developed world economic support.

Other Dependency Models

In this context, it might be useful to cite several examples of dependency models which have
been proposed in the past as alternatives to the classic models, and as substitutes for
authentic models of self-governance with full political equality.

As early as 1990 at a seminar held in Barbados on constitutional advancement in the non--

independent Caribbean, the model of 'protectorate status" was proposed by an eminent British
professor -mainly regarding the British territories -as an alternative to what was termed the economic
infeasibility of independence and the inflexibility" of free association. Most speakers at the Barbados
seminar dismissed this proposal as not sufficiently self-governing, and reaffirmed the importance of
maintaining a standard of autonomy required in the free association definition. 11/

A second model of dependency, termed "sustained autonomy, II was introduced by a New

Zealand law expert at the 1993 Pacific Regional Seminar held in Papua New Guinea. This concept,
which was mainly for Pacific territories presently under French or New Zealand jurisdiction, would have
provided for what was called a "residual power" on the part of the cosmopolitan country to make laws
for the territory, with cosmopolitan country jurisdiction over criminal and civil proceedings of the
judiciary among other areas. This model was not favoured by the people of the Pacific territories who felt
more autonomy was necessary. 12/
 A third such model was proposed, in the context of the U. S. territories, by a former
University of the Virgin Islands professor who introduced in 1993 to a United States Committee of
Congress the idea of unilateral incorporation of the U. S. territories by granting them participation in
U.S. presidential elections (with one collective vote for the five territories). It did not address the issue
of voting rights in the U.S. Congress for this new model of incorporated territory .The Congress took the
proposal under advisement. The spectre of 1/5 of one electoral college vote -most likely in exchange for
the income tax revenue which presently remains in the territorial treasury -was not necessarily appealing
to territorial representatives at the Congressional hearing.

There are interesting similarities of this last proposal to the "Representation of Dependencies at
Westminster Bill" introduced in the British House of Commons by Labour MP Andrew MacKinlay in
1998 which would have provided for a non-voting petitioner from the individual British territory to be
permitted to address the House of Commons from the bar on relevant issues determined by the Speaker of
the House to be relating exclusively to that territory. It is understood that this element was based on the
non-voting delegate model of partial representation of the U.S. territories in the U.S. House of
Representatives (lower house) of the Congress. Interestingly, this proposal was not included in the final
British Labour Party White (policy)Paper of the UK Government that articulated the dynamics of a new
dependency relationship with the British territories.

International Support for Continued Vigilance

Amid these shifting positions by the administering states, the international community -after a
period of post Cold War adjustment from an "East -West" to "North-South" paradigm, has reiterated its
support for political equality as the continual standard for the remaining territories. Political statements,
declarations and resolutions from the international community to this effect have steadily increased from
the second half of the 1990s. Two Caribbean statements are indicative.

* In a statement to the U.N. General Assembly, on behalf of the Caribbean Community

(CARICOM), Antigua and Barbuda Ambassador Dr. Patrick A. Lewis reaffirmed the longstanding
CARICOM position as follows:

"A cursory review of the political and constitutional development of the remaining, mostly small island;
non-self-governing territories makes it evident that none of them
have met the essential criteria of full and absolute political equality as defined by the
UN General Assembly in its landmark resolutions. These principles of political equality
must remain the operative standard to be applied to the self-determination process of the remaining...
territories. This is essential in order to avoid the inadvertent legitimisation by
the international community of un-equal, politically dependent, arrangements that still
characterize the present political status of those territories. " 13

Further, the linkage of human rights conventions and the contemporary decolonisation process was re-
affirmed in a statement by then- Ambassador Julian R. Hunte of St. Lucia to the Third Committee of the
General Assembly in 2000 in which he supported the U.N. Secretary-General in his 2000 report that
defined "the right to self-determination as a fundamental human right in the Charter of the United
Nations, the two principle human rights covenants, the Declaration on the Right to Development, and
other international instruments and declarations. "
!

Mr. Hunte went on to remind the Third Committee that "increased attention is
being paid to the issue of self-determination by the Commission on Human Rights which adopts
resolutions on the issue, and by the Human Rights Committee which considers periodic reports on
compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in some of the small island
territories."

Further evidence of this support was found in the Millennium Declaration adopted on 8th
September 2000 which re-dedicated the efforts of the world community to uphold "the right to
self-determination of peoples under colonial rule.

Hence, there appears to be a re-emerging consensus among developed and developing countries
alike of the importance of the contemporary self-determination process. Where the differences appear are
in the elements of the political status of the dependency, and whether those elements conform to the
principles of equality in realistic terms, as far as a small territory can be equal to a developed
cosmopolitan country. In this sense, the objective reality clearly favours the developing country view of
this dilemma that the basic principles of political equality are essential to the development of good
governance, and such principles would effectively accelerate the process of full self-governance and
constitutional advancement.

The Dutch and French Models of Self-Governance in the Caribbean

Both the Dutch and French have devised models of self-governance in the region which have
achieved political equality for their former territories and these models can be instructive for the future
development of the remaining small island territories in the region.

The Dutch Model

The Dutch have two associates in the Caribbean, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, which are
autonomous countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The third country in the
Kingdom is Holland. Some have likened the arrangement to that between Puerto Rico and the
United States, as surmised by one British scholar. 14

The comparison is not accurate, however, when it is revealed that, apart from the shared
citizenship between the smaller and larger "associate" in both models, the unilateral authority of the
larger 'associate' to legislate for the smaller associate, in the case of the Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin
Islands models, render these arrangements distinct examples of non-self-governing constitutional
dependency.

On the other hand, the association between the Netherlands Antilles and the other partners
within the Kingdom is essentially an arrangement of equal partners. Of course, the usual division of
power between a small and large associate applies, in particular, defence considerations which are the
collective responsibility of the three partners, and on some foreign relations matters. Again, certain mis-
interpretations apply in relation to the awareness of the dynamics of this association arrangement, as in
the case of foreign affairs representation. The 1998 U .K. House of Commons Dependent Territories
Review, for example, mis-stated that "the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are not represented in their
own right in international fora, but as part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands." 15/ In fact, both the
Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are represented in their own right in a myriad of Caribbean, Latin
American and other international organisations, and have been eligible for direct participation in special
sessions of the U.N. General Assembly and U.N. world conferences since 1992 Indeed, Article 28 of the
Charter of the Kingdom clearly states that ". ..the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba may, if they so desire,
accede to membership of international organisations. "

The essence of the relationship among the partners within the Kingdom is contained in the
preamble of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands which states that the three countries
established a ". ..constitutional order in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in which they will conduct their
internal interests autonomously and their common interests on the basis of equality and will accord
each other reciprocal assistance, and resolved by mutual consent to establish the Charter of the
Kingdom. "

The basic tenet of "mutual consent " as expressed in the Kingdom Charter as contrasted with the
"tenet of unilateral authority " in the British and U. S. dependency models, is the characteristic which
distinguishes the modern association arrangement from that of the classic political dependency. This
policy also applies to the application of Kingdom laws, and in relation to the application of international
economic and financial agreements. In the latter case, Article 25 of the Charter indicates that:

"The King shall not bind the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba to international economic and
financial agreements if the Government of the Country, setting forth the reasons for considering that
this would be detrimental to the country, has declared that the Country should not be bound by them. "

Additional provisions are contained in the Charter which include the full participation of the
Netherlands Antilles and Aruba in the negotiation of international agreements which might affect them.

The autonomous elements of the Dutch model of free association in the Caribbean, coupled with
its mutual consent provisions, is a contemporary model of free association between small island
Caribbean countries and larger associated countries outside the region -a model with provisions worth
exploring in the context of applicability to the devolution of power to the remaining small island non-
self-governing territories. -if the political will can be generated to accede to these essential changes.

The French Model

The French model of integration in the Latin American and Caribbean -Guadeloupe and its
dependencies, Martinique and French Guiana -is a classic case of full political equality with full
representation of the overseas department in the French political system -a fundamental principle of
concurrence with the definition of political integration under U .N .Resolution 1541 (XV). This full
integration implies full membership in the European Union and other economic benefits of European
integration. Yet, the arrangement in recent years has provided for some form of limited autonomy to
foster economic ties with neighboring independent Caribbean states through the respective regional
councils of the three departments which had been established in 1982.

The French model is likened to that of the U.S. state of Hawaii which is a full and equal
participant in the U.S. political system. There is no indication, however, that the U.S. or the British
would entertain offering the integration model to the remaining Caribbean territories -the eight years of
multi-million dollar lobbying of the U.S. Congress on the part of the pro--integrationist party in Puerto
Rico have brought that territory no closer to full integration with the U.S. than they were before they
began. Their efforts, in fact, may have evoked the unintended consequence of fostering more support for
independence or the U.S. Pacific model of free association for Puerto Rico.

From Dependency to Self-Governance

For the remaining small island territories, the devolution of power and the provision of more
autonomy to the elected governments is vital to fostering their political and economic future as they
proceed along an evolutionary path toward full and absolute political equality -either by full integration
with an independent state, free association with an independent state, or independence.

Such autonomy can take many forms as governments of these territories mature and develop, at
their own pace, the capacity to take on more powers, either constitutionally following some form of
popular consultation leading to the constitutional change, or delegated from the cosmopole. In this
regard, there can exist an organic link between the level of sustained economic growth in an individual
territory and the attainment of more autonomy.

In the case of territories like Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands where the economic
progress has been steady and sustained, concern for the impact of restrictions from external governance
becomes more acute. European policy imposed on the offshore sector is the most recent illustration,
while the provision in the British White Paper on the overseas (dependent) limiting their borrowing
authority is another example. Restricted ability to maneuver financially in a globalised world is
especially glaring when some territories such as Bermuda and the BVI no longer receive financial 'grant
in aid' from the United Kingdom and feel that their internal
economic decisions should be their own. This might be an emerging trend which could also become
increasingly apparent in other British territories, with the unintended/intended effect of nudging these
territories into independence -especially if free association continues to be dismissed by the UK as an
option which they are not willing to entertain. The longstanding UK position, popularised by the former
British Conservative Party government, and seemingly continued under the Labour Party Government, is
that any devolution of power would be granted only within the context of a timetable for independence.

It very well may be that, in the era of globalisation, independence for small states is much more
inter-dependent than ever, and at least several of the small island non-self-governing territories in the
Caribbean might be faced with a decision to pursue such a timetable if they continue to see that
continued constitutional dependency might be an impediment to their ability to adjust quickly enough to
global economic developments in the international marketplace.
 Notes

1/ Report of the Chairman of the Working Group of Non-Independent Caribbean Countries, Santo
Domingo, Dominican Republic, 26 July 1994, U.N. Doc. No. LC/CAR/G.413, 15 July 1994

2/ Dependency and Change-Political Status Options for the U.S. Virgin Islands, Dr. Carlyle Corbin,
Aaronsrod Communications, Ltd., Road town, Tortola/Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, 1988.

3/ Thirty Years of the Decolonisation Declaration, United Nations Department of Special Political
Questions, Regional Cooperation, Trusteeship and Decolonisation, Publication No. 39, April,
1990, pgs 4 - 10.

4/ Ibid, pg. 35

5/ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) entitled “Principles which
should guide members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the
information called for under Article 73 (e) of the Charter,” 15 December 1960.

6/ Puerto Rico and the International Process - New Roles in Association, A Report of the
Conference on Puerto Rico and the Foreign Policy Process held at Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, by Michael Reisman, American Society for International Law,
New York, 1975.

7/ "(The U.S. Congress now) define(s) the status quo option as a territory that should be
decolonized pursuant to the United Nations International Decade for the Eradication of
Colonialism, according to the House Committee Report accompanying the bill. Such a
portrayal of the political status under which Puerto Rico had been governed since 1952
was strongly opposed by the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party (PDP) who
perceived the commonwealth arrangement as a de facto associated state, governed not by
the territorial clause of the U.S. constitution, but rather, by a bilateral pact. PDP
President Acevedo Vila had earlier contended in March, 1997 hearings before the House
Resources Committee that "the assumption made in the bill that it is not possible to have
a non-colonial bilateral relationship, based on mutual consent with American citizenship
as a bond between Puerto Rico and the United States is against history (and) legal
precedents, and noted that previous legislation introduced in the House on Puerto Rico
had recognized the bi-lateral nature of the U.S. Puerto Rico relationship. Acevedo Vila
has termed the present bill "unacceptable, and argued that it "reneges on the word of the
United States given to the people of Puerto Rico and to the world in 1953,” I in reference
to statements to the United Nations by the U.S. delegation that the attainment of
commonwealth by Puerto Rico was a form of association with sufficient autonomy that it
no longer required oversight by the U.N. The General Assembly later that year agreed to
remove Puerto Rico from the U.N. list of non-self-governing territories (by Resolution
748), although the current arrangement does not meet the standard of a 'full measure of
 self government" approved by the U.N. in 1960. In what many describe as a classic
political contradiction, subsequent efforts to have Puerto Rico re-inscribed on the U.N.
list for more than three and one-half decades have been met by steadfast resistance on the
part of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. on the premise that the remaining non-self
governing territories are, in fact, self-governing after all, regardless of whether any
changes have been made to upgrade their political status arrangement. This proposition,
of course, is diametrically opposed to the position just approved by the U.S. House of
Representatives in the Puerto Rico legislation that defines the island as a colony. This
'two Puerto Rico, policy finds Puerto Rico to regarded as a colony in the U.S. Congress,
but as self-governing by the U.S. delegation at the United Nations.

8/ See Overseas Territories Review, Vol. 2, No. 5; Caribbean Information Services Ltd.,
Washington, D.C.; April, 1999.

9/ The USVI political status law required 50 % + 1 of the voters to participate, while the
actual percentage of participants was 27.8 %, thus rendering the process lega1ly null and
void

10/ UNAVI is the only non-governmental organisation in the USVI with focus on political
and constitutional development of the territory, and has presented scholarly papers to the
United Nations on these and related issues since 1991.

11/ See Report of the Regional Seminar in Observance of the Thirtieth Anniversary of the
(Decolonisation)Declaration, held at Bridgetown, Barbados from 19th to 21st June 1990;
U.N. Document A/AC.109/1043, 30 June 1990.

12/ See Report of the Pacific Regional Seminar to Review the Political, Economic and
Social Conditions in the Small Island Non-Self-Governing Territories, held at Port
Moresby, Papua New Guinea, from 8th to 10th June 1993; U.N. Document
A/AC.109/1159; 1st July 1993.

13/ See Statement of H.E. Dr. Patrick A. Lewis, Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda to the
Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, on behalf of CARICOM states on agenda
items 18, 88, 89, 90 and 91; 28th September 2000.

14/ See Hintjens, Helen M.; Governance Options in Europe’s Caribbean Dependencies - The
End of Independence; The Roundtable Newsletter, pp 538; United Kingdom; 1997

15/ See Dependent Territories Review, Interim Report, Foreign Affairs Committee, House of
Commons (Session 1997-98), United Kingdom; 29th January 1998