Dr. Carlyle Corbin\'s July 3, 2009 Emancipation Day Address.

1. Overseas Territories Report
________________________________________________________________________
The authoritative journal on economic, social and political developments in
and affecting small island overseas countries, territories and departments
________________________________________________________________
Vol. VIII No. 2 July 2009
North American Edition
The 161st anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the former Danish West Indies – the
present day US Virgin Islands - was commemorated on 3rd July 2009. A commemorative
programme was held in Fort Frederik, Frederiksted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands. An
address was given by former Virgin Islands Minister for External Affairs Dr. Carlyle G.
Corbin, International Advisor on Democratic Governance. The address has been made
available to Overseas Territories Review (OTR), and is reprinted by permission.
_____________________________________________________________________________
“Political Evolution: The Next Phase of Emancipation”
Dr. Carlyle G. Corbin
International Advisor on Democratic Governance
(former US Virgin Islands Minister of State for External Affairs)
3rd July 2009
Introduction
I wish to thank the members of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, the organizers
of this important event each year, for the kind invitation to participate in these activities
in commemoration of the 161st anniversary of emancipation. I wish to especially thank
Ms. Mary Moorhead and Ms. Pam Richards for facilitating my participation at this year’s
activities. I have worked with these dynamic Virgin Islanders for a number of years, and
was honoured to have been asked to present some thoughts on this sacred day in our
history.
I especially wish to congratulate my friend and brother Mario Moorhead on the
publication of his most recent book, “He and Me.” His earlier works, Redemption,
Mammon Versus History, Who Feels it Knows It, and the series of ‘Black Star novels
among other works, provide a most dynamic analysis of the historical evolution of the
people of the Virgin Islands. These works are required reading for those who wish to
achieve clarity on the true legacy of the struggle of our past, and what is necessary to
move forward. In the words of Actress Ruby Dee, “Above all, we need those with a sense
of history - those who have the longer view.” I look forward to Mario’s feature address
this afternoon.

2. As we commemorate this 161st year of emancipation, it is my firm belief that
today, Emancipation Day, is our single most important holiday because it represents the
successful struggle of the ancestors in abolishing the abominable system of slavery under
the Kingdom of Denmark, beginning a long and arduous journey towards the pursuit –
but not yet the attainment - of the civil, political and human rights of the people.
It is interesting that Emancipation Day in other parts of the Caribbean is often the
most important holiday on the calendar. Our close neighbor, the British Virgin Islands,
commemorates its emancipation on the first Monday in August (August Monday). In fact,
the Emancipation Festival in the BVI, as in other British territories, is centered around
Emancipation Day, with many activities dealing with cultural history and the struggle of
African people who succeeded in defeating slavery under the British.
International Commemoration of the Abolition of Slavery
In recent years, my work at the United Nations has permitted me to participate in
the international commemoration the abolition of slavery. On 17th December 2007, the
United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution designating March 25th each year
as the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic
Slave Trade. As a result, a number of educational outreach programmes have been
instituted to draw attention to the “causes, consequences and lessons of the transatlantic
slave trade, and to communicate the dangers of racism and prejudice.” This initiative was
done through the collaboration of the member countries of Caribbean Community
(CARICOM) and the African Union at the United Nations. Ambassador Crispen Gregoire
of Dominica and Ambassador Raymond Wolfe of Jamaica are especially engaged in
keeping the issue on the front burner of the United Nations. This initiative was an
outgrowth of the momentum generated at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance which convened in 2001 in South
Africa – one of the world conferences in which I had the honour to speak on behalf of the
Government of the US Virgin Islands during my tenure in Government House.
In 2008, a number of activities were undertaken including a solemn ceremony in
the United Nations General Assembly Hall and an exhibition in the United Nations
Visitor’s Lobby entitled “The Middle Passage: White Ships, Black Cargo.” Additionally,
a conference entitled “Lest We Forget: Breaking the Silence on the Transatlantic Slave
Trade,” was also held after the premiere of the powerful documentary “The Slave Route:
A Global Vision.” Also in 2008, a group of students sailing on a replica of the Freedom
Schooner Amistad retracing the Transatlantic Slave Route joined an international
videoconference, when their ship docked in St. Lucia on 26 March.
The 2009 activities three months ago at the United Nations included several
documentary films: Scattered Africa: Faces and Voices of the African Diaspora
(US),and "Black Atlantic: On the Orixas Route" (Brazil). An expert panel discussion on
“The Legacy of the Slave Trade on Modern Society,” and a major cultural event in the
General Assembly Hall culminated this year’s commemoration. Recently, a Trust Fund
was established for the creation of a permanent memorial at United Nations Headquarters
acknowledging victims of slavery and the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. You would be
2

3. interested to know that the Kingdom of Denmark has pledged US$ 10,000 to this
memorial, and was one of the first countries to so pledge.
To this end, Denmark’s acknowledgment of the past has been encouraging. In a
2007 report submitted to the United Nations, Denmark acknowledged its role in “the
barbarism of transatlantic slave trade (which) constitute(d) one of the darkest chapters of
our history, in terms of its magnitude, its organized nature and particularly its negation
of the human dignity of the victims.” The Danish perspective, however, regards slavery as
a legal institution at the time it was practiced, and as such, absolves them of any liability
to this point. In any case, the Danes, too, should share in this July 3rd commemoration as
well since our emancipation, and the cessation of that “crime against humanity,” was
part of Danish political history and evolution, as well – even as emancipation was not
one of benevolent enlightenment, but rather the result of the organized revolt by the
enslaved Africans.
The Internalization of Dependency
A week or so ago, I heard a talk show host in St. Thomas discuss the adoption of
the recent non-binding US Senate Resolution 26 apologising for the “enslavement and
racial discrimination of African-Americans.” This followed the adoption in 2008 of a
similar resolution in the House of Representatives (H. Res.194). Neither resolution,
however, supported reparations for the descendents of the enslaved Africans. Undeterred,
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan last January introduced legislation, once again (HR 40),
to form a Commission to Study Reparation Proposals.
Meanwhile, President Obama’s delegation to the recent United Nations
international conference in Geneva to review progress in implementing measures to
combat racism successfully pressed for the removal of reference to reparations in the
final report of the conference.
In any case, what was interesting to me as I listened to the talk show host discuss
the Congressional apology was how he internalized this Congressional resolution, as if it
applied to us here in this unincorporated territory. I am sure that he was aware that the
slavery experience of our ancestors was under Denmark, not under the United States –
unless, of course, the US assumed liability at the time of the purchase. I don’t see that
anywhere in the Treaty of Cession, however.
The point that I am making is that our territorial status has caused us to internalize
many things that do not apply to us precisely because our political identity is incomplete.
In effect, we operate without a full measure of self-government. We are a people, not a
‘minority,’ as we are often referred to in the media. How can an overwhelmingly African
descended society located in the Caribbean be referred to as a minority? Even federal
statistics acknowledge that the society is comprised of about 85 per cent African
descendents. Why, then, are we continuously characterized as a minority? As Paul
Keens-Douglas wrote, is this “freedom of the press, or freedom to de-press?”
3

4. The fact is that we are a people who have a right to self-determination under
international law - but we have never exercised that right. The Charter of the United
Nations and the human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights confirm this right as inalienable. This is not based on United Nations resolutions
whose effect is not legally binding – although they are certainly morally binding. These
are international treaties which are, in fact, legally binding on the countries that enter into
them.
Under this inalienable right of self-determination, we have the right to choose
from a set of legitimate political status options which provide for absolute political
equality. As a society, however, we seem to have internalized the dependent territorial
status, and by doing so, we have given it a legitimacy which it does not necessarily
warrant. It has served us to this point in our political evolution and development, but the
elements of the present status remain seriously deficient with respect to what constitutes
democracy. These democratic deficiencies are the primary reason why we are listed by
the United Nations as one of the sixteen remaining non self-governing territories. If we
cannot be recognised as a people because of our dependent territory status, then there is
clearly something wrong with that status – not with the people who demand their due
recognition as a people. Identity and citizenship are not necessarily synonymous.
Recommendations have been made by the United Nations General Assembly
since 1946 to give effect to our political development and evolution to full self-
government. As a society, however, we are encouraged to dismiss the relevancy of
international law and principles, and the role of the United Nations, even as most of our
elected governments for decades have addressed the United Nations during the annual
United Nations review of the US Virgin Islands. The Bush Administration issued a policy
position that the territories under its administration were no longer an international issue,
and merely a domestic one – but they still report to the United Nations every year. But, if
we are not an international issue, why are we still on the United Nations list, and why did
the Bush Administration continue to acknowledge us as an international question by
reporting to the United Nations?
We do not read, see nor hear much of any of this in the media. The fact that our
political development has been the subject of international review and assessment since
1946, based on the Charter of the United Nations is rarely reported - unless someone
writes a guest editorial. We must find alternative sources to fill the considerable gaps in
information on matters that directly relate to us.
Status Quo Versus Options of Political Equality
I was asked to focus this afternoon on the option of free association – one of the
three options which would provide us with a full measure of self-government. It is an
option which is recognized as a permanent political status, along with independence and
integration, in accordance with international law. These three options are also recognized
by the US Congress as options of political equality. Present legislation before Congress
4

5. known as the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 (H.R. 2499) introduced by Puerto Rico
Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi confirms that these three options as the only ones
which provide for a permanent political status. The White House under former President
Bush had agreed that these were the three permanent options in their 2005 and 2007
reports, while also recognizing the temporary nature, as well as the limitations, of the
present territorial status. Puerto Rico Governor Luis Fortuño put it this way in his
testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources on
self-determination legislation for Puerto Rico:
“230 years after the Declaration of Independence and 220 after the ratification of
the US constitution, (the United States) continues to sanction an arrangement of
governance over four million of its citizens that is abhorrent to the sacred
principles enshrined in that Declaration because of the anachronistic survival of
the Territory Clause of that constitution.”
Governor Fortuño continued that:
“Whatever may have been the role of the territorial system in the birth and
growth of (the United States), the fact is that (the) Founding Fathers never
intended it as a permanent way of governance by the federal government over the
citizens of the Republic. More importantly, it clearly offends the values of
American democracy in the 21st Century, especially as Congress has allowed such
an inherently undemocratic system to remain in place…”
The Governor went on to say that:
“…we have forged an overall and growing consensus in Puerto Rico that our
current relationship with the U.S. – territorial, unequal in the rights and duties of
citizenship, not fully democratic, not fully self-governing and not fully consensual
– no longer serves either Puerto Rico or the U.S. as well.”
The present territorial status no longer serves the U.S. Virgin Islands either.
Governor Fortuño, in his testimony, asked the fundamental question of “whether
the framers of the (U.S.) constitution intend American citizenship to be a source of equal
rights?”
He observed that “Puerto Rico is a community of American citizens who are
deprived of the most basic rights of citizenship in a representative democracy: the right
to vote and the right to be represented in the political body that enacts the laws by which
they must abide.”
He ventured that “American citizens in Puerto Rico are separated from their
counterparts in the States by a wall of political inequality built upon the foundation of
our current territorial status.”
5

6. So there we have it. In analyzing this unincorporated territorial status, then, it is
easy to recognize the fundamental democratic deficiencies under which we are governed.
We are aware, for example, that we have no presidential vote, non-voting representation
in the US House of Representatives and no representation at all in the US Senate. We
also know that there are limitations, because of our status, in relation to the level of
participation in some federal programmes.
The inconsistency of these democratic deficiencies are mentioned, often in
passing, in the local media from time to time, but often so obliquely that it generates little
or no reaction. As Mario might say, we may have heard it, but nothing rang in our head.
This is not the case in some of the other territories. The driving force behind Puerto Rican
political parties, for example, is their support for a political status preference. Thus, there
is a pro-statehood New Progressive Party, a pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic
Party and a pro-independence Puerto Rico Independence Party. The political leadership,
as evidenced by the clarity of position of Puerto Rico Governor Fortuño and other
political leaders, plays a critical role in the public education process on these issues.
The territory of Guam recognised the importance of full internal self-government
as far back as the 1990s, and voted in favour of substantive autonomy in a referendum,
although their proposal stalled in Congress.
The commonwealth of the Northern Marianas has the most autonomous status of
all of the US territories with powers governing the ownership of land and sea resources,
among other areas. They gained these powers through successful negotiations with the
United States in the 1980s. Recently, however, their autonomy is being systematically
eroded by the Congress through legislation adopted late last year. This has motivated the
Marianas Government to bring suit against the federal government for the unilateral
removal of their self-government. We await the decision on their lawsuit which was filed
in federal court in Washington, D.C.
For our part, the Virgin Islands Status Commission in the early 1990s drafted an
autonomous political arrangement for consideration by the voters as an attempt to achieve
a degree of self-government. The faulty process which included an excessive number of
seven options severely impeded a proper public review of the areas contained in the
autonomy proposal. The result, as we recall, was a less than sufficient turn-out in the
1993 referendum, and we reverted to the status quo, by default, and many questions
remained.
Thus, in our present political status, we in the US Virgin Islands know that there
is something not quite right. There is something peculiar, for example, with the fact that
on Election Day last year we could not cast a vote for Mr. Obama – we seem to have
concluded that voting in a primary election in the territory months before the ‘real vote’
for president is sufficient. We have internalized the deficiencies, and seem to have
accepted them as adequate. We have given legitimacy to a model of political dependency
which is far short of acceptable democratic governance. The late Michael Manley in the
6

7. book “Struggle in the Periphery,” wrote that in order “to go forward (we) first have to
recognize the depth of the trap in which we are caught.”
It may be surprising to many that the denial of such political rights is an issue for
the citizens of the District of Columbia. The democratic deficiencies in their political
status vis a vis the United States were enough to motivate civic leaders to file a case in
the Inter American Commission for Human Rights. The Commission ultimately ruled that
the lack of Congressional vote violated international law (specifically, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, et al). The Inter American Commission on
Human Rights is a statutory body of the Organization of American States (OAS) which
itself has a Democracy Charter by which it defends democratic principles in the
hemisphere. On this basis, a similar case was filed with the same Commission by former
Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Rossello, but has not yet been heard.
While there are no enforcement provisions in the Commission rulings, they
represent a true sense of moral reasoning. In any case, such rulings serve as precedents
for our situation as an unincorporated territory if we were to similarly challenge our lack
of full political rights. Are there similarly organized civic groups in the US Virgin Islands
who recognize the democratic deficiencies, and who would bring such a challenge?
Indeed, proper and sustainable organisation around these issues is critical if we
are to advance from the political periphery. As if to confirm our place in that periphery,
the US courts have continuously and consistently reaffirmed that full political rights can
only be granted through the achievement of political integration, or statehood. The ruling
of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in 2000 was a landmark in a
series of earlier and subsequent court decisions which confirmed this fact. The Court
reversed an earlier District Court of Puerto Rico decision which had concluded that the
24th and 26th amendments of the U.S. Constitution “support that the right to participate
in presidential elections is not a function of state residence, but rather of individual right
of citizenship.” However, it was confirmed by the Appeals Court, once again, that only
citizens residing in one of the fifty states have the power to vote for electors, and thereby
indirectly for the president of the United States. A similar case brought by Krim
Ballantine in St. Thomas with respect to the US Virgin Islands has met with similar
rulings.
The federal executive has acted consistent with these rulings, and has made
important policy decisions regarding the territories to this effect. Thus, prevailing White
House policy has confirmed that the present status in Puerto Rico known as
commonwealth is really an unincorporated territory subject to the Territorial Clause of
the US Constitution. This gives the Congress the right to unilaterally make laws for the
territories without their consent, and often against their will. It is this very unilateral
authority which has been identified by the United Nations General Assembly each year as
the fundamental basis of the political inequality which characterizes unincorporated
territorial status. It is a fundamental reason for the retention of territories on the UN list
of non self-governing territories. We are one of the sixteen remaining territories on that
list.
7

8. We should find out the position of the Obama Administration later this year on
the self-determination process of the territories when the newest White House report on
the status of Puerto Rico is due. Would the Obama administration have a different
opinion than that of the Bush administration on the legitimacy of territorial status, and the
possible way forward? We shall see. It is often the case, however, that policy made on the
basis of the U.S. Justice Department opinion carries over from one administration to the
next.
But whatever is decided, one thing remains clear. There is a fundamental
imbalance in the political relationship between a territory and the federal government.
The only matter of discussion is how do we correct the imbalance? But then again, do we
recognize that such an imbalance indeed exists? Do we consider that the political
imbalance of power between the federal government and the territory is necessary - to
keep us in check? I am especially troubled by this thinking. This is why Mario’s talk
show is so important because it helps us to understand the imbalance, and to discuss how
it can be re-balanced. On this Emancipation Day, I recall the words of former Tanzanian
President Julius Nyerere that: “Freedom is the ability to determine your own future and
to govern without interference.”
One way of addressing the imbalance is through a gradualist approach where we
would seek incremental rights, beginning, perhaps, with the presidential vote. But this
would be a formidable task, and could only come via an amendment to the US
Constitution, as was done for the District of Columbia. It would be a major challenge to
gain overwhelming support of both houses of Congress along with three-fourths of the
state legislatures for a constitutional amendment. The lobbying costs alone would
probably be prohibitive. Of course, legislation to grant the presidential vote to the U.S.
territories by federal law has been dutifully introduced in the House of Representatives,
year after year, for decades. These bills have never been acted upon.
Also taking the gradualist approach, we could seek to gain full voting rights in the US
House of Representatives as opposed to the present vote only in committee. Under the
present Democratic Party-controlled Congress, this also includes a vote in the
Committee of the Whole pursuant to House rules. But the District of Columbia non-
voting delegate can attest to the difficulties in achieving a Congressional vote for a non-
state, as present legislation is being held up as a result of provisions added to soften DC
gun laws – to allow more guns. You might be quite amazed by the nature of the
discussions in the Congressional debate on several bills that would extend House of
Representatives voting rights to Washington, D.C.
Further, what about the vote for the territories in the US Senate? The US Constitution
is clear that only states have that power. We are not a state, although we have state
directors and state plans, and state-like treatment. A colleague of mine calls it the
illusion of inclusion. But, as Martin Luther King said in his “I have a dream” speech on
the steps of the US Capitol, “We must guard against the tranquilizing drug of
gradualism.” As Leba Ola Niyi concluded in his newspaper column on this day, “the
status quo is archaic, colonial and undesirable.”
8

9. The fact that we have an Olympic team which competes in international competitions
under the US Virgin Islands flag, and the fact that we have associate membership in
several United Nations agencies with a seat behind the US Virgin Islands nameplate,
should signal that our status is complex. States cannot send teams to the Olympics nor
can they be represented in international organisations. These things were created, mostly
at the request of the territories, to contribute to preparation towards full self-government.
We must not lose sight of that fact.
Statehood as a Legitimate Option
If we really want to transform the ‘illusion of inclusion,’ and gain full political rights
in the United States system, we could become a state, or even a part of a state. But with a
population of just over 100,000, as well as other demographic factors, it would be
especially difficult to achieve separate statehood. Of course, there is the possibility of
joining an existing state, or joining with a new state entering the union. This would solve
the democratic deficit. We would have a vote in both Houses of Congress, as well as the
presidential vote. But would this be in our economic, cultural and political interest? There
are certain questions that answer themselves just by being asked.
But it is necessary for us to decide our political future sooner, rather than later. If we
don’t decide, Congress could decide for us - so if they wish to combine us with an
existing state, for example, or make us three new municipalities of a new 51st state of
Puerto Rico, what would be our response? Indignation? Incredulity? Or would we have a
counter offer?
In any case, the option of integration – or as we know it, statehood - is defined by
the United Nations in its Resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960, as follows:
• "Integration should be on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the
erstwhile non-self-governing territory with which it is integrated. The peoples of both
territories should have equal status and rights of citizenship and equal guarantees of
fundamental rights and freedoms without any distinction or discrimination; both
should have equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective
participation at all levels in the executive, legislative and judicial organs of
government...”
Former territories such as Alaska and Hawaii became the 49th and 50th states of the
US, and as such, were removed from the UN list of non self-governing territories. In our
region, Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana are the examples of integration
through their overseas departmental status. This provides them with full political rights,
but recent labour unrest indicates that the model is far from perfect. Recently, there have
been calls for the creation of a new autonomous arrangement for Martinique – perhaps
along the lines of French Polynesia. In any case, the chronic economic crisis in Hawaii
does not bode well for the ‘overseas state’ model, which along with the five US
territories, was in economic crisis long before the present global recession.
9

10. Of course, political integration, or statehood, is one of the three options which
provide for full political equality where the people of the territory would have full
political rights, as well as the responsibilities of actually being “a part of” the US -
rather than “owned by” it. Many have internalized that we are a part of the US already,
since we hear the phrase repeated on a daily basis. But the political and constitutional
reality is fundamentally clearly otherwise. Having the US territories embossed on the
back of a coin does not constitute political integration, but merely serves to further the
illusion of integration. I suppose if any of the territories change their status, the minting
of these coins would cease, and the remaining coins would become immediate collector’s
items.
I am clearly not an advocate of statehood. But I fully respect it as a viable option
because it would afford full political rights which we presently do not have. It would
provide, in the words of the late Peter Tosh, “equal rights and justice.” The price in
economic, social and cultural terms, however, might be far too steep.
Evolution of Governance
Historically, we have gone through various systems of governance, beginning
with chattel slavery to military governance through Congressional rule via the Organic
Act of 1936 and the Revised Organic Act of 1954, as it has been subsequently amended.
In the process, we have moved from the era of an appointed governor to one of an elected
governor by 1968 – all the while, still being governed by the Revised Organic Act which
was written by the U.S. Congress.
We have gone through four – and now five – attempts to draft a local constitution
- with the caveat each time that the final document would have to be consistent with our
present dependency status. I share the view of those who felt that we should have
followed the will of the people who voted in referendum in 1982 to deal with status first.
Of course, we did try to deal with status through two commissions in the 1980s and
1990s, as well as one committee of the Legislature. Our second Status Commission,
which convened before and after Hurricane Hugo, and on which I had the honour to
serve, did significant work that should have propelled us into a new decade of
concentration on the political evolution of the territory. Some of our best political
thinkers of today, Gerard Emanuel and Malik Sekou, were part of that earlier process,
and it is most unfortunate that their recommendation was not accepted that an educational
component on political development be continued after the inconclusive referendum of
1993.
As such, there was no public discussion on the status or constitutional issues
between 1993 and the present Fifth Constitutional Convention process. Many issues
which were left unresolved following the political status referendum in 1993 have re-
surfaced in the Fifth Constitutional Convention which has a narrower mandate. We
should not be surprised since this was the only forum for over a decade where any issues
of governance could be discussed.
10

11. My view is that a constitution based on a legitimate status chosen by the people
would be preferable than one which is based on the status quo which itself was never
meant to be permanent. Territorial status was always meant to be a transitional status to
one of permanence. We have tweaked it, amended it and otherwise changed it within
parametres, sometimes defined, sometimes un-defined by the U.S. Congress, and always
subject to unilateral change. Such changes effectively eliminated the foreign sales
corporations sector, and had significant impacts on the investment incentive programme,
for example. The overarching control to legislate for the territory remained, and remains,
in place.
It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the issues under discussion in the
present Fifth Constitutional Convention were those which sought more autonomy and
local control. Some viewed them as ‘status’ issues. Again, I have always favoured status-
first, but in a pragmatic sense, I take the view that anything which stimulates discussion
on political development is a good thing. This is why I agreed to serve as an advisor to
the Fifth Constitutional Convention where the deliberations raised a series of
fundamental questions, such as:
• Would additional powers and authority be delegated by the Congress to an
unincorporated territory under a local constitution?
•
• Does the fact that other US territories have unique provisions in their constitutions in
relation to their local population serve as precedents for the US Virgin Islands? If not,
why not?
•
• If the process goes through successfully, and we adopt a new constitution after it
comes from Washington – assuming it actually goes to Washington – will we feel that
we have “arrived,” and that we are “done with that?”
•
• Or will we recognise that with the enactment of a new constitution, a step would be
made, but that we would still remain an unincorporated territory, albeit with a
constitution, as opposed to a territory without a constitution as we are now?
•
• Will we come to the realisation that a local constitution would be only the beginning of
a process to address the fundamental matter of achieving full internal self-
government and the achievement of a permanent status.
It is often better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.
Free Association
As I stated earlier, integration, free association and independence are the three
options recognised as legitimate by the White House, by the Congress and by the United
Nations. If these are the available alternatives to achieve a permanent status, then the
most logical step in my view would be a transition from a political dependency, as we are
now, to a political association – given that the territorial status was always meant to be
temporary and transitory.
11

12. Most of the present work in political transition has been historically done in
regards to Puerto Rico, and is directly related to the political future of the US Virgin
Islands. The present legislation before the US Congress authorizing a referendum for
Puerto Rico confirms the legitimacy of the three options. It also provides for the Puerto
Rican people to choose the status quo commonwealth - but if the people choose it, they
would have to vote again in a few years, until they select one of the three permanent
options. As you might imagine, Commonwealth supporters are not too pleased with their
option of “permanent union” with United States now being re-defined as temporary. As
far as they are concerned, commonwealth is permanent. This is part of their illusion.
Free association, then, is an option which emerged from the same United Nations
resolution which defined political integration, specifically United Nations Resolution
1541 (XV) of 1960. It sets the minimum standards for an acceptable autonomous political
arrangement. Accordingly:
• “Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples
of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. It
should be one which respects the individuality and the cultural characteristics of the
territory and its peoples, and retains for the peoples of the territory which is
associated with an independent state the freedom to modify the status of that territory
through the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional
processes.
• The associated territory should have the right to determine its internal constitution
without outside interference, in accordance with due constitutional processes and the
freely expressed wishes of the people..."
So far, the model of free association offered by the United States is that which it
maintains in the Pacific with the associated states of Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall
Islands. These arrangements emerged from the former United Nations Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands, and are based primarily on military considerations in exchange for
long-term economic assistance packages. There are also requirements for consultation to
take place on all issues related to defense and foreign affairs. The three associated states
are also full members of the United Nations.
The free association arrangements between these three associated states and the
United States provides for grant assistance over a twenty year period (which could be
extended), and a trust fund that will accrue to provide an ongoing source of revenue when
direct U.S. grant assistance ends. The arrangement also identifies the mutually agreed
priorities for grant assistance in the areas of education, health care, infrastructure, private
development, environmental protection, and capacity building sectors. It also provides for
the continuation of federal programs and services for the benefit of the citizens of the
associated state.
The Congressional Research Service in a 2005 Report indicated that the US model of
free association is based upon a legal document known as a compact of association
between the associated state and the United States. The CRS also said that free
association could be accompanied by a transition period in which the United States could
12

13. continue to administer certain services and provide further assistance for a period of time,
as specified in the compact. Free association could also be annulled by either party based
on the terms of the compact.
Whether US citizenship could be retained under free association continues to be the
biggest question mark. I would argue that if free association with the retention of US
citizenship were offered to Puerto Rico, a critical mass of 75 per cent of the electorate
would coalesce around that option – especially if statehood were denied. The Congress,
thus far, has been rather adept over the decades in avoiding the question of whether it
would accept Puerto Rico as a Spanish-speaking state. The retention of the primacy of the
Spanish language as a state is non-negotiable, even among many pro-statehooders.
Congress may be faced with that question, once again, if the present legislation
authorizing a referendum for Puerto Rico on the three options is adopted and signed into
law by President Obama.
In the Caribbean, there are presently other, more flexible, models of autonomy
which combine elements of free association and elements of integration. These have risen
to the level of political equality sufficient to remove them from United Nations
jurisdiction. The Netherlands Antilles, comprised of Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, St.
Eustatius and Sint Maarten, is referred to in the Charter of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands as a separate country with significant autonomous powers, along with Aruba
and Holland. The relationship allows for the right to influence whether or how Kingdom
laws or treaties apply. At the same time, there are provisions for participation in the
legislative body of the Kingdom. The present dismantling of the five-island Netherlands
Antilles has more to do with the difficulties in multi-island governance from Curacao
than the efficacy of the autonomous model itself. Both Sint Maarten and Curacao fought
hard to maintain the autonomy existing in the present arrangement of the five islands in
their negotiations with the Dutch on separate arrangements for the individual islands. The
negotiations, however, have resulted in some loss of autonomy in fiscal matters and
security.
Puerto Rico used to be considered a model of free association with the United
States on the basis of common market, common citizenship, common defence and
common currency. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Puerto Rico model of
commonwealth has been re-defined by the White House, and in Congressional
legislation, with the perception of autonomy significantly curtailed. It is on the basis of
significant autonomy, however, that the people supported numerous referenda in support
of commonwealth status.
Pro-commonwealth leaders continue to argue – most recently in Congressional
hearings – that the commonwealth status provides freedom from control or interference
by the Congress in respect of internal government and administration. They cite a series
of US Supreme Court decisions supporting their position, as well as a 1971 U.S. Justice
Department opinion which concluded that Congress can gradually relinquish its plenary
powers and grant ever increasing measures of self-government. More recent Justice
Department opinions, however, appear to have modified this perspective.
13

14. Other autonomous models for small island territories are in the Pacific, including
the Cook Islands and Niue in free association with New Zealand. This is probably the
most progressive of models of association existing today, providing for the maximum
autonomy with shared New Zealand citizenship.
There is also Greenland and the Faroe Islands which enjoy autonomous
arrangements with Denmark. These arrangements (Greenland more than the Faroes)
provides for significant autonomy, while also providing for shared Danish citizenship and
voting representation in the Danish Parliament. This brings to mind a discussion in our
Status Commission in the 1990s of adding “Return to Denmark” as a status option. It
was clear that the political status of Greenland and Faroe Islands, respectively, was far
more autonomous than our present status of unincorporated territory. Since we already
had seven options, however, there was insufficient interest in adding an eighth.
In all of these cases, though, the elements of any model of free association are
determined in negotiation. Our best minds would have to be tasked to study these models,
and develop a strategic plan for negotiations. Ultimately, an autonomous arrangement
specifically suited to us would be the logical outcome. Of course, this would have to be
preceded by an extensive public education programme on the three legitimate political
options, to ensure fairness. To this end, the federal government has an international
obligation under Article 73(b) of the United Nations Charter to assist the territory in the
promotion of self-government.
So far, the federal government has not been forthcoming in providing such
assistance. Both the Virgin Islands Status Commission in the early 1990s, and the present
Fifth Constitutional Convention, made requests for assistance in conducting a public
education programme. In both cases, the requests were denied, as was the request for the
authority to access United Nations assistance. Interestingly, previous Congressional
legislation on status referenda for Puerto Rico would have the public educational
programme funded from the rum excise tax rebate.
Conclusion
Of the three legitimate options of political equality, I would lean towards the
option of free association. While I am confident that we have the capacity to govern
ourselves as an independent state, just as any other small island states in the Caribbean
with even smaller populations than our own, it is clear to me that our society is not
presently prepared for such a qualitative leap at this time. Independence is a state of
mind. We are not in that state of mind.
Free association would be an excellent compromise between those who wish to retain
a political relationship with the United States, while also attaining more autonomous
powers. It would also place us in a position for further political evolution. Because of the
democratic deficiencies, including the continued vulnerability to unilateral decisions
affecting us, I do not believe that it is in our interest to maintain the status quo. Long-
term planning is difficult, at best, when the rules can be changed unilaterally at any time.
14

15. Thus, we should do all we can to replace the unincorporated territorial status with a
more democratic model of governance where the power lies with the people.Barring any
extraordinary political initiatives to address our political status in the next several years,
however, we will observe in the year 2017 the centennial under United States jurisdiction
as an unincorporated territory. The four previous efforts to draft a local constitution since
the 1960s, and the three processes to deal with the issue of our political status since the
1980s, have been useful exercises, but they have not yielded a result. We therefore
remain as one of the sixteen remaining non self-governing territories in the world eight
years before the centennial in 2017. I have read that celebrations are being planned, as we
speak. But by 2017:
• Will we remain as an un-incorporated dependency, albeit with a constitution?
• Will there be renewed emphasis on addressing the political status options, and will
there be a final status determined?
• Or will we consider a dependency constitution, if successfully adopted, the end of our
political development – notwithstanding the continued applicability of the Territorial
Clause of the US Constitution?
• In a broader sense, are the minimum requirements of democratic legitimacy met by a
political system of governance which maintains unilateral authority by a government
in which the territory has no voting rights?
• Do our people have a problem with being equated with “territory or other property,”
and referred to in legislation as offshore possessions, insular areas, and similar terms
which are insensitive given the historical legacy of slavery?
Again, it is often better to know some of the questions than all of the answers. These
are some of the questions which are fundamental to our future political and socio-
economic development.
I would further ask whether our society is comfortable with the present arrangement
as an unincorporated territory whose government, according to a federal court ruling,
exists only by the “legislative grace of Congress?” If so, then there should be no surprise
when laws, regulations and other decisions continue to be unilaterally applied, without
the consent of the governed, and often against their wishes, with unknown economic
repercussions.
But if an awareness emerges among the people that the dependency status has
become anachronistic, then much work lies ahead. In the first instance, there would have
to be a process developed to sensitize the society of the existing democratic deficiencies
in our present status, how these deficiencies affect us in our daily lives and how
upgrading the status would benefit us, and more importantly, future generations. Our
young people are watching closely.
15

16. Such an exercise would lead to a viable, democratic model with a full measure of
self-government for the 21st Century, based on internationally recognised standards of
full political equality and democratic governance. Our choices are to act, or to acquiesce.
We must decide, or I am afraid that our future may be decided for us.
A good place to start would be in defining the ‘We.” Leba put it best in his
newspaper column on this 161st commemoration of Emancipation Day when he said that
“the descendents of the emancipated Africans have the duty to achieve the highest degree
of self-determination and political equality.”
It is only from the base of our collective Caribbean identity that will propel us toward a
natural political evolution as a society. This is the next phase of emancipation, and
perhaps the most challenging phase since the struggle which began in 1848. We must
remove the barriers which have been artificially erected to fragment Caribbean people in
our society. We must forge the strategic Caribbean alliance which is critical and essential
in the building of a 21st Century Virgin Islands. We must embrace the richness of our
collective identity. We can forward from there.
Atlantic/Caribbean Small Island Non Self Governing Territories (2009)
Anguilla United Kingdom
Bermuda United Kingdom
British Virgin Islands United Kingdom
Cayman Islands United Kingdom
Falkland Islands/Malvinas Subject to sovereignty dispute between
Argentina and the United Kingdom)
Gibraltar Subject to sovereignty dispute between
Spain and the United Kingdom
Montserrat United Kingdom
Puerto Rico (not formally listed by United Nations)
St. Helena United Kingdom
Turks and Caicos Islands United Kingdom
United States Virgin Islands United States
Source: United Nations Association of the Virgin Islands, 2009
Overseas Territories Report and Overseas Territories Review are publications of Caribbean
Information Services, Ltd., 75853 Washington, D.C. Union Station 20013 overseasreview@yahoo.com
www.overseasreview.blogspot.com All Rights Reserved.
16