UNITED NATIONS T
Trusteeship Cou neil
Distr. GENERAL
T/PV.l649 12 May 1988
ENGLISH
Fifty-fifth Session
VERBATIM REQ)RD OF THE SIXTEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-NINTH MEETING
Held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 11 May 1988, at 3 p.rn.
President: Mr. GAUSSOT (France)
- Dissemination of information on the United Nations and the International Trusteeship system in Trust Territories; report of the Secretary-General (T/1924) [Trusteeship Council resolution 36 (III) and General Assembly resolution 754 (VIII)]
Examination of petitions listed in the annex to the agenda (T/1922/Add.l)
- Organization of work
This record is subject to correction.
Corrections should be submitted in one of the working languages, preferably in the same language as the text to which they refer. They should be set forth in a memorandum and also, if possible, incorporated in a copy of the record. They should be sent, within one week of the date of this document, to the Chief, Official Records Editing Section, Department of Conference Services, room DC2-750, 2 United Nations Plaza, and incorpora ted in a copy of the record.
Any corrections to the records of the meetings of this session will be consolidated in a single corrigendum, to be issued shortly after the end of the session.
88-60564 4211V ( E) RM/3 T/PV.l649 2
The meeting was called to order at 3.20 p.m.
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM IN TRUST TERRITORIES; REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (T/1924) {TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL RESOLUTION 36 (III) AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 754 (VIII)]
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I call upon
Mr. Mahmoud El-Said, representative of the Department of Public Information, to
introduce the report of the Secretary-General (T/1924). He will give us an
overview of the activities of the United Nations with regard to dissemination of
information on the united Nations within the Trust Territory of the Pacifie Islands.
Mr. EL-SAID (Department of Public Information): It gives me great
pleasure to appear for the first time before the Trusteeship Council to introduce
the Secretary-General's annual report on "Dissemination of information on the
United Nations and the international Trusteeship System in the Trust Territory of
the Pacifie Islands" (T/1924). Before doing so, I wish to express our deep
appreciation for the Council's understanding and consideration in allowing the
Department of Public Information to introduce its report at this stage rather than
later.
This report, like previous ones, is a hrief summary of the activities carried
out by the Department of Public Information and other offices of the Secretariat in
order to maintain the awareness of the people in the Territory of the activities of
the United Nations with regard to this important issue.
The report is self explanatory. However, I am glad to draw the attention of
delegations to the fact that, in spite of severe financial constraints, the
Director of the United Nations Information Centre in Tokyo was ahle this year to
make a visit to the State of Yap, the Republic of Palau and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands and to contact the media in Guam. RM/3 T/PV.l649 3
(Mr. El-Said)
I would be glad to answer any auestions or to provide any further clarifications to the Council.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): Does any memher of the
Council wish to comment on the report of the Secretary-General at this time?
In accordance with our provisional programme of work, the Council will take up its consideration of the Secretary-General's report on the dissemination of information on the United Nations in the Trust Territory on Friday, 13 May.
EXAMINATION OF PETITIONS LISTED IN THE ANNEX TO THE AGENDA (T/1922/Add.l)
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): As we agreed at our meeting yesterday, the Council will now begin the hearing of petitioners whose reauests for hearing are contained in documents T/PET.l0/698, 701 to 704, 707 and 708, and 710 to 716. Those reauests were accepted earlier in accordance with rule 80, paragraph 2, of the Council's rules of procedure.
I would suggest that today the Council hear the following petitioners:
Ms. Sue Rahbitt Roff, Mr. William Butler, Mr. Pedro Tenorio, Mr. Benjamin Manglona,
Mr. Pedro Guerrero, Mr. Pedro Atalig and Mr. Antonio Camacho.
To facilitate the Council's discussions I would suggest that memhers who wish to ask auestions of the petitioners do so at the end of the meeting.
As I hear no objection, it is so decided.
At the invitation of the President, Ms. Sue Rabhitt Roff, Mr. William Butler,
Mr. Pedro Tenorio, Mr. Benjamin Manglona, Mr. Pedro Guerrero, Mr. Pedro Atalig and
Mr. Antonio Camacho took places at the petitioners' table. RM/3 T/PV.l649 4
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I call upon
Mr. William Butler of the Arnerican Association for the International Commission of
Jurists, whose petition is contained in document T/PET.l0/713, to rnake his
staternent.
Mr. BUTLER: Thank you very rnuch, Mr. President, for having allowed me to
corne here today to relate to you the resulta of a recent mission the International
Commission of Jurists of Geneva, Switzerland, co-sponsored by the Arnerican
Association for the International Commission of Juriste, held in January 1988. The
International Commission of Jurists is a non-governrnental organization in
congultative status with the united Nations and has been for many, many years. It
is concerned prirnarily with the protection of the rule of law and the promotion of
the independence of the judiciary everywhere in the world as an indispensable
ingredient in the defence of hurnan freedorn.
First, I think I should extend to you, Sir, the warrnest congratulations of the
International Commission of Jurists on your election to the presidency of the
Trusteeship Council. We wish you every success in your new endeavour.
In the late autumn of 1987 the International Commission of Jurists was asked
by sorne of its mernbers to look into a situation in the Republic of Palau. The
circumstances of that inauiry arose from an opinion rendered by a Judge Hefner of
the Trial Division of the Suprerne Court of Palau, which indicated that a certain
lawsuit supported by 18 to 20 plaintiffs had been withdrawn because of intimidation
of violence, because of violence itself and because of threats to the judiciary
and to the legal profession in that Territory. On the basis of that prelirninary
information the International Commission established a mission to go to Palau in
January of 1988 to inauire into the apparent threat to the rule of law, to the
judiciary and to the independence of the legal profession in Palau, and also an
interference with the rights of Palauan citizens to test serious constitutional
auestions hefore their duly elected courts. RM/3 T/PV.l649 5
(Mr. Butler)
The mission was composed of the Honourable Michael n. Kirby, C.M.G., President of the Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; the
Honourable George c. Edwards, for 25 years senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, and now a senior judge on that court, and myself, as Chairman of the International
Commission of Jurists and President of its American section. RM/3 T/PV.l649 6
(Mr. Butler)
Before I relate to the Council the conclusions of our investigation, in view of the testimony I understand was given here yesterday by a representative of Palau
I should like to state certain basic facts concerning the conduct of our mission.
The mission was received by the Chief Justice of Palau, Judge Nakamura, and when we arrived in Palau we had the following contacts and interviews with officiais of the
Palauan Government. Our first interviews were with the three Justices of the
Supreme Court of Palau who were in residence at the time of our arriva!: Chief
Justice Nakamura, Judge Loren Sutton and Judge Arthur Hefner. We spent a few hours with them the first day we were there, but immediately thereafter we were received
hy President Lazarus Salii and we had a long and intimate interview with him at the
President's office.
On the next day we had a series of appointments set up for us by officiais of
the Palauan Government. We spent the morning with Speaker Ulechong, who, I am
delighted to see, is sitting here today, and two of his associates on the Palauan
national Congress. On 19 January, the next day, we had a long full-morning
interview with four members of the Palauan Senate: Lucius Malsol, Joshua Koshiba,
Haruo Esang and Tommy Remengsan. Later on that day we had a long, two-hour
interview with the acting Attorney-General of Palau.
So went the appointments throughout the rest of the week. we held long
meetings with the Bar Association, its Chairman, Carlos Salii, the brother of the
President, with Jonas Olkeriil, Dennis M. Coughlin and Philip D. Isaac. we also
met with the furloughed workers who allegedly caused many of the disturbances in
the community in 1987, in particular with John Tarkong, who is the lawyer and
general counsel for the furloughed workers' association and the lawyer for the new
political party which may emerge from that association, called Ta Relau, Inc. We RM/3 T/PV.l649 7
(Mr. Butler) also met with the legal services representatives, Clara Kalscheur and Yukiwo P.
Dengokl. In addition, we met with the land management and public affairs officer,
Daiziro Nakamura and, of course, with the Ibedul and many other segments of Palauan society, including Mr. Pruitt of the United States Department of State and
Mr. Tmetuchl, another political candidate. On the way back we met with Judge
Hefner in Guam.
Those are just sorne of the appointments; there were 15 or 20 others involving citizens, lawyers, Catholic priests, ministers, teachers and others interested in the general issue that we were interested in.
I want to make it very clear that it is not the purpose or the mandate of the
International Commission of Jurists to inauire into political auestions. Our sole concern is the auestion of constitutional law, the supremacy of law, the supremacy of the Constitution, the rights of an independent judiciary freely to adjudicate auestions presented to it by citizens, the right of citizens to present auestions - constitutional issues particularly - to the courts which they have elected and to which they have delegated their power, the rights of counsel, and the right of those citizens to have counsel to assert their rights pursuant to law.
We are not interested in the political auestions that are abundant in Palau: auestions of the nuclear provisions of the Constitutions, auestions of incompetence, the auestion of corruption and other matters related to the issues that are presented before the Trusteeship Council. we are interested only in the processes of law and the protection of those processes, because we believe fundamentally that unless these basic tenets are adhered to, the individual citizen
is deprived of the greatest protection of his basic fundamental freedoms. RM/3 T/PV.l649 8
(Mr. Butler)
with that in mind we went to Palau and we investigated the events that occurred chiefly between July 1987 and September 1987. The Council will recall that during that period the Palauan legislature passed legislation which authorized the holding of two plebiscites in August 1987. One was a plebiscite to amend the
Constitution so as to remove a long-standing constitutional provision reauiring that the Compact of Free Association with the united States be approved by at least a 75 per cent vote of tbose voting in a regular election, so that only Su per cent would be reauired in this particular plebiscite. The second plebiscite was to approve the Compact of Free Association, which would have been approved by only a
SU per cent vote of those voting, as distinguished from the 75 per cent reauirement in the Constitution.
It is no news to any member of the Trusteeship Council that this was nothing new in Palau, because this was the sixth referendum which the authorities
interested in adopting this Compact of Free Association had worked upon the Palauan citizens. In a final attempt, realizing in effect that it might not be able to get
the 75 per cent vote needed, they manipulated the Constitution of Palau so as to
provide that only a 50 per cent vote would be reauired.
When this auestion was challenged in the Palauan courts in September 1987 by
18 women plaintiffs, a series of violent acts took place to prevent those citizens
from hringing their petition to the court. r know that members all have copies of
my report and, I hope, have at least scanned through it and know that these acts of
intimidation included among other things the murder of the father of one of the
plaintiffs, the fire-homhing of severa! of the plaintiffs' bouses, threats of
violence towards individuals, the sending of policemen in police-cars with a
stipulation of the dismissal of this lawsuit, with the implied threat that they had
hetter sign "or else". All of this resulted in the withdrawal of this case from
the Palauan Supreme Court. RM/3 T/PV.l649 9-10
(Mr. Butler)
That was the basis of Judge Heffner's opinion that there was evidence that this case had been withdrawn as a result of actual acts of violence, attempts at violence, intimidation and other pressures which are not acceptable to the
International Commission of Jurists in the administration of the legal process.
Furthermore, we found two additional facts which disturbed us greatly. One was that there was direct intimidation of the judiciary of Palau by actual threats to the Chief Justice and other justices. Members of the legislature and members of the Furlough Committee - and indeed members of the Bar Association - had written letters to the judges, especially the Chief Justice asking him to withdraw as a participant because he was biased, had a conflict of interest and had no right to sit on that particular case.
This impermissible action on the part of not only the Palauan Government but also other organizations interested in getting the Compact ratified added up in our opinion to a breakdown of the rule of law in Palau in the summer and fall of 1987.
The second important fact we found out long after we got there. After
interviewing severa! members of the Palauan National Congress we found out that the
legislation that was adopted in arder to set these wheels in motion in July 1987 was forced upon the legislators by acts of violence, by people camping out outside
the legislature, by people wearing red bands around their heads as a signal of a
threat, by coffins being paraded around the legislative halls, and other acts of
intimidation. The Speaker of the House of Delegates, who is sitting here with me
today, has more than amply described these events in testimony he has given before
the united States Congress, and to which I have referred in our report. RM/3 T/PV.l649 11
(Mr. Butler)
There can be no auestion but that we felt that not only had the legal processes broken down, not only was there irnproper interference with the judiciary, not only could plaintiffs not bring lawsuits, but the political will of the legislators was also thwarted by acts sponsored by the Governrnent and other
interested parties in its enactrnent of the very legislation that had brought about
the referendum in August of 1984.
The three of us are old-time jurists. We have been practising law for an
awfully long tirne - all of us more than 40 years - and two and a half or three
months afterwards, looking at the best side of everything and giving everyone their
right to give us information, we regretfully had to conclude that there was a
hreakdown of the rule of law and of the legislative process during the period
beginning July to Septernber 1987. We urged the Adrninistering Authority and the
Palauan Government to allow these plaintiff to reinstitute their lawsuit so that
the sanctity of the rule of law, the legitimate expression of judicial process,
could be protected.
That report was circulated to all parties, including the Trusteeship Council,
sorne tirne ago in the early part of ~pril, and I am delighted to report to the
Council that the lawsuit has been reinstituted in Palau and that the Palauan
Suprerne Court, in a 33-page opinion, has determined that the legislation
authorizing the approval of the Compact and the arnendrnent to the Constitution is
null and void and unconstitutional. That decision of the lower court of the Trial
Division is now on appeal to the supreme Court of Palau and probably will be heard
sorne time in the latter part of June or early part of July.
We are satisfied that the judiciary in Palau is independent, although
irnproperly interfered with, but feel that in the processes of hringing the lawsuit
in the period between July and September 1987 there was a complete breakdown.
Today, when we look at it, we see the processes working again, and the plaintiffs RM/3 T/PV.l649 12
(Mr. Butler) have renewed courage in the expression of their wish to have the important constitutional issues decided by their own courts. One of the committees of the
United States Congress is holding up the approval of the Compact pending the resolution by the duly constituted judicial authorities of Palau of the auestion of whether or not the Compact of Free Association bas been legally ratified by the
Palauan Government and people.
As the state of the law is today, it bas not been legally ratified, and if that decision of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Palau is sustained by the three-judge Supreme Court of Palau designated by Judge Nakamura to hear that case - Judges Loren Sutton, Hefner and D'Brian - then the ultimate decision as to whether or not the Compact is legal or illegal or illegally ratified will not be up to the United States, not up to a certificate of the President of Palau or the
President of the United States, not up to the united States Congress, but solely up to the surpeme Court of Palau, to whom the Palauan people have given the ultimate authority to decide these issues within the context of their own Constitution.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I now call upon
M. sue Rabbitt Roff, representing the Minority Rights Group, whose petition appears in document T/PET.l0/710.
Ms. ROFF: Thank you, Mr. President, for once again permitting us to express our concerna about the process of termination of the the Trusteeship of the
Pacifie Islands.
There is clear evidence that the process for choosing a future political statua for the people of Palau in particular is now deeply flawed. If the
Administering Authority's insistence on repeated referendums on a non-negotiable proposa! for future political statua that would he impossible to terminate by the people of Palau alone, a proposa! that does not include the possibility of RM/3 T/PV.l649 13
(Ms. Roff) independence, as protected in the arrangements for the Cook Islands and Niue, were not substantive enough flaw to invalidate the process, the events of the past year have surely done so.
There is clear evidence that the Administering Authority is permitting the
breakdown of order and the due process of law by its proxies in Palau in an effort
to intimidate the people into accepting the non-negotiable, non-terminahle Compact
of Free Association and its subsidiary agreements.
The most recent evidence of the breakdown of order and due process of law
cornes from a report to the American Association for the International Commission of
Jurists, New York, and the International Commission of Jurists, Geneva, by a
three-member mission that visited Palau early in 1988. In that report Mr. Butler,
the Honourable George Edwards and the Honourable Michael Kirby found, inter alia:
"4. The August 1987 referendum purporting to authorize by an amendment
to the Constitution a su per cent vote on the Compact of Free Association
raises serious, substantial and arguable auestions of constitutionality which
can only finally be passed upon by the Supreme Court of Palau.
"5. Attempts by Palauan citizens to raise these auestions have been
thwarted in the first instance by behind-the-scenes arrangements between top
Government officiais and the litigants and, in the second instance, by threats
of violence and intimidation against the plaintffs. These acts, many of which
were plainly criminal in nature, included fire-bombing, shooting at the homes
of sorne of the plaintiffs, direct threats of violence to many of the
plaintiffs and the murder of the father of one of the main plaintiffs.
"6. There has been an illegal and improper interference with and
pressure upon the independence of the judiciary in that: A. Members of the
legislature engaged in express threats to the Chief Justice; B. Mernbers of the
Furlough Cornmittee have filed a petition for removal of the Chief Justice RM/3 T/PV.l649 14
(Ms. Roff)
from the case; c. A series of oral threats were made directly and indirectly
to the members of the judiciary of Palau and their families1 and, o. An
organized attempt to threaten the judiciary by surrounding the supreme Court
building with çampers who wore red bands and who camouflaged a Government
truck to appear to be a coffin, with the words inscribed on it: Red Septemher.
"7. Specifically, we conclude that the withdrawal of this case, entitled
Ngirmang, et al. vs. Salii, et al., was involuntary. Such withdrawal was
brought about by 'intimidation through the use of violence.' Accordingly we
conclude that, hecause substantial constitutional issues cannot be challenged
and determined in Palauan courts hecause of threats to litigants, lawyers and
the judiciary, there bas been a breakdown of the rule of law in Palau.
"8. It is our duty to report our conclusion that there is evidence of
Government complicity in many of the matters raised in this report, such as:
"Constant and repeated public statements by Government officiais on the
Government-controlled radio attacking or denigrating the judiciary or
referring to the tyranny of the courts;
"Police participation or acauiescence in these events by failing to
maintain law and order and by the failure of police and the Attorney General
to pursue claims;
"Constant pressure on legitimate opposition, such as the threatening loss
of jobs and assignment of opponents to uncomfortable shifts;
"Threats by police officials concerning the withdrawal of legal actions;
"Threats of the denia! of scholarships to members of the families of
those opposing the Compact.
"Sadly, there are also serious allegations of corruption against
prominent Palauans which we consider it proper to mention but not to RM/3 T/PV.l649 15
(Ms. Roff)
elaborate. There were also many allegations of incompetence and waste, the
use of Government property for private purposes and alleged bribes regarding
the building of a power-plant. RM/3 T/PV.l649 16
(Ms. Roff)
"9. We conclude that the Eleventh Legislative Session of the National
Congress of Palau of July 1987 was held in a climate of near hysteria; that
Legislators were coerced into voting in favor of the bill authorizing the
Amendment to the Constitution and approval of the Compact referenda of
August 1987; and that such legislation did not freely reflect the considered
political will of the Palauan National Congress, as the Constitution of Palau
envisaged that it would be expressed.
"10. We conclude that the Palauan Bar Association failed in its duty to
maintain the rule of law when it knew, or should have known, that judges,
lawyers and litigants were being threatened in their professional capacity.
It should be pointed out that the brother of the President, Carlos Salii, is
President of the Palauan Bar Association."
That mission together with other negotiations in Washington fortunately brought about the possibility of a fair hearing of the issues in the Supreme Court of Palau. An indication of the climate in which the Court worked was apparent from
Judge Hefner's Epilogue to his Memorandum of Opinion in Ltelatk Pritz et al. v.
Lazarus E. Salii, et. al, Civil Action no. 161-87. There Judge Hefner noted, at page 3U:
"Constitutional government assures its citizens that their everyday lives
will be guided and protected by its written document - unaffected by the
immediate desires of sorne or even of a majority unless those desires comport
with its Constitution.
"This case presents a classic example of that basic tenet. Approval of
the Compact is a prereauisite for substantial funding, which, it is presumed,
will hring almost immediate gratification to a large majority of the citizens RM/3 T/PV.l649 17
(Ms. Roff)
of the Republic. But tomorrow•s lucre pales in the face of today•s
recognition of the integrity and stability of the Constitution of the Republic.
"The Constitution exista to protect the rights of the majority as well as
the minority. In the final analysis, the minority has more to gain from a
stable Constitution than the majority. Their rights are preserved regardless
of the circumstances.
"In this matter, the plaintiffs have exercised their right to contest the
propriety of the amendment process under what appear to be stressful and
adverse conditions. The Court bas previously commented on the indication of
violence which may have dictated the dismissal of this action on
September 9, 1987. Since that time numerous affidavits have been filed in
this case by sorne of the plaintiffs which reflect a pattern of threats and
intimidation against them. According to the affidavits, the government was
instrumental in providing transportation and personnel to garner the
signatures for the prior dismissal.
"If such allegations are true, it is a sad commentary on the
participation of the government in providing a means for those who advocate or
promote violence to gain their end - to bar the plaintiffs from having their
day in court.•
Associate Justice Robert A. Hefner of the Supreme Court of Palau also warned
in this Memorandum of Opinion against the tactics of the Administering Authority
and its proxy in Palau in their efforts to seek unilateral termination of the
Trusteeship. His footnote 7 reads:
"Apparently, sorne members of the United states government recognize the certification simply because it is by the duly elected president of the
country. Presumably this view is based more or less on the Act of State RM/3 T/PV.l649 18
(Ms. Roff)
Doctrine which accepts without question the acts of the government done within
its own territory. Underhill v. Hernandez, 167 u.s. 250, 18 s.ct. 83 (1897).
However, since Palau is still under the trusteeship umbrella of the United
States, the Constitution was formulated under the auspices of the united
States Trust Territory Administration and, of course, the Compact provides a
uniaue on-going relationship between Palau and the united States, the doctrine
bas doubtful application here.
"Under all the circumstances surrounding this case (presumably within the
knowledge of the united States Government) and the political background and
intimate connection of the United States with Palau (certainly within the
knowledge of the IJnited States), the unauestioned reliance upon the
certification of the President of Palau does not comport with the reputation
of the United States for fostering and supporting democracies for emerging
countries under its political wing."
As a non-governmental organization that bas long monitored the process of decolonization in the Trust Territory of the Pacifie Islands, we ask the
Trusteeship Council to ensure that the people of Palau are not forced to violate their Constitution in order to ensure the continuance of public funding that the
Administering Authority is obliged to provide under the Trusteeship. It is clear that the manipulation of that public funding is at the root of the civil violence in Palau at this time. It is also clear from the public record that the United
States insistence on military access, including that of nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed vessels, is at the heart of its intransigence, in clear violation of
General Assembly resolution 35/118, which provides in paragraph 9 of its annex: RM/3 T/PV.l649 19
(Ms. Roff)
"Member States shall oppose all military activities and arrangements by
colonial and occupying Powers in the Territories under colonial and racist
domination, as such activities and arrangements constitute an obstacle to the
full implementation of the Declaration [on the Granting of Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples], and shall intensify their efforts with a view
to securing the immediate and unconditional withdrawal from colonial
Territories of military bases and installations of colonial Powers."
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I now call on
Mr. Pedro Tenorio, Lieutenant-Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands. His petition is reproduced in document T/PET.l0/702.
Mr. TENORIO: At the outset I wish to introduce the members of our
delegation who will be making statements this afternoon. They are:
Mr. Benjamin T. Manglona, President of our Senate, who will speak on behalf of the
Senate; Speaker Pedro R. Guerrero and Representative Antonio M. Camacho, speaking
on behalf of our House of Representatives~ and Mr. Pedro M. Atalig, Chairman of our
Committee on Trusteeship Termination; and Mr. Elias Okamura, who will speak on
behalf of that Committee. They will introduce their colleagues at the appropriate
time. Mr. Froilan c. Tenorio, our elected representative to the United States and
his staff, Mr. Martin Taman and Mr. James Mendiola, are also with us.
We are also accompanied by several prominent citizens of our Commonwealth who
are very active supporters in our ouest for Commonwealth status with the United
States. They are Mr. Jose c. Tenorio, Mr. Manuel s. Villagomez; former Speaker,
Mr. José R. Lifoifoi, and Mrs. Lifoifoi ; former Speaker, Mr. Benigno Fitial;
Mr. Abed Younis; and Mr. Vicente Babauta.
Also with us are spouses and friends of our delegation. RM/3 T/PV.l649 20
(Mr. Tenorio)
Finally, we are accompanied by our legal advisers, Mr. Eric Smith from the
Office of the Attorney-General in the Commonwealth, and Mr. Dan McMeekin and
Mr. Don woodworth, our legal consultants.
Our delegation is large this year, unlike previous years, because our concerns are large, and crucial to our people. On behalf of my delegation, I ask for the
Council's patience and understanding in giving us sufficient time to present the results of the political initiative recently undertaken and inform the Council of problems affecting the relationship hetween the Government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Administering Authority. RM/3 T/PV.l649 21
(Mr. Tenorio)
on behalf of the delegation from the Northern Mariana Islands, Sir, I wish to convey our congratulations to you on your election as President of the Trusteeship
Council. The delegation from the Northern Mariana Islands further wishes to express our deepest appreciation to you and the ether members of the Council for
allowing us to present statements. We thank the United States for its
understanding of our appearance before this body, especially at a time of
controversy on whether the Trusteeship Agreement bas heen terminated and whether
the United States has assumed plenary authority over our interna! affaira. Fully
cognizant of the potential negative impact our appearance here may have on the
political and economie relationship between our Governments, we set aside those
fears to present an initiative voted upon and passed by over 75 per cent of the
people on 7 November 1987. We appear today to present the official resulta of this
initiative. The resulta are the voice of our people.
The initiative reaffirma our people's right to govern themselves with respect
to interna! affaira in accordance with a Constitution of their own adoption. This
right is set out in the Covenant - the agreement between the Administering
Authority and the Northern Mariana Islands.
The Covenant is fully in effect, even though the trusteeship has not been
officially terminated hy the Security Council. Every year since 1978 we have
reauested that this Council and the Administering Authority terminate the
trusteeship. We have also reauested partial termination in the interest of the
Northern Marianas. Thus far no action hy the united Nations has formally
terminated the trusteeship. we again ask the council to terminate the trusteeship,
but only when certain language recognizing the wishes of our people is included in
any resolution by the Security Council terminating the Trusteeship Agreement for
the Formerly Mandated Japanese Islands, and self-government is realized. The RM/3 T/PV.l649 22
(Mr. Tenorio) language we desire will state explicitly that the Northern Mariana Islands Covenant with the United States must be understood to guarantee the right to internal self-government in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the Trusteeship Agreement.
The self-government initiative reflects our people's concern at a series of recent actions by the Administering Authority. Those actions have encroached on our right of self-government. Our Governor invoked the consultation provisions of section 902 of the Covenant in an attempt to resolve those disputes with our political partner, the Administering Authority. The President of the United States appointed a Special Representative to consult with us regarding these issues. In past statements to the Council I expressed our confidence that this process of consultation would result in a mutually satisfactory resolution of these issues. I regret to report that the consultations have not been successful. Our third and most recent meeting with the President's Special Representative was held in April
1987, more than a year ago. Unfortunately, the representative of the Administering
Authority resigned last July without resolving any of the issues designated for consultation. To date no replacement has been appointed. The de facto suspension of the good-faith consultations provided for by the Covenant makes us apprehensive that the other guarantees of the Covenant will not be observed. We have exhausted all avenues of redress through the consultation procedure set out in the Covenant.
In entering into the Covenant with the Administering Authority, the people of the Northern Marianas reserved the right to establish their own internal government - an interna! government with total authority over local and internal matters. The people of the Northern Marianas did not demand the right to vote for federal elected officiais. They did not demand any right to representation in the national Government of the Administering Authority. The people did, however, RM/3 T/PV.l649 23
(Mr. Tenorio) insist on an inviolable right to interna! self-government. The language that we wish to have included in the formal termination resolution reaffirma the self-government guarantees of the Covenant. It does not alter the basic agreement, so we hope there will be no objection from the Administering Authority or other
Members of the united Nations.
While we are satisfied with many of the political and socio-economic arrangements prescribed in our Covenant with the Administering Authority, the failure of the Administering Authority to recognize full interna! self-government by the people of the Northern Mariana Islands has diluted our historie desire and dreams for a permanent and enduring political association with the Administering
Authority. We are a group of small islands. We lack the ability to insist that the Administering Authority, one of the super-Powers, honour and recognize our
right to internal self-government. For this reason, we appeal to the Council to
exert the influence of the international community on the Administering Authority
to protect and preserve the right to internal self-government promised by the
United Nations Charter, the Trusteeship Agreement and the Covenant we have
negotiated with the Administering Authority as the basis for our political
relationship.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I now call on
Mr. Benjamin Manglona, President of the Senate of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, whose petition also appears in document T/PET.lU/7U2.
Mr. MANGLONA: My name is Benjamin T. Manglona. I serve as President of
the Senate of the Sixth Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature. Accompanying
me today are Senator Manuel P. Villagomez and Senator Paul A. Manglona.
tve are here today to represent the people of the Northern Marianas and to join
our colleagues in formally presenting to the Council the results of a Northern RM/3 T/PV.l649 24
(Mr. Manglona)
Marianas-wide initiative held on 7 November 1987. In this initiative our people overwhelmingly reaffirmed their desire for internal sovereignty. They clearly expressed their wish for self-government in all local and internal matters.
The fact that such an initiative appeared on our ballot will demon~trate to the United Nations that self-government is an important and very crucial issue for us. This is because under our Commonwealth relationship with the United States our hopes for true local self-government have not been entirely fulfilled. We have no control over our own internal affaira. Our rights in the Commonwealth Covenant for self-government have not been fully and truly realized.
After an initial period of Commonwealth status many of our people feel that the United States Government has repudiated its guarantees to us that we may control our interna! affairs under the Covenant agreement. Many believe that the promises of self-government - even those contained in article 6 of the 1947
Trusteeship Agreement - have never been fully realized.
When I first appeared before the Council in 1969 as a member of the Congress of Micronesia's Committee on Future Political Statua, I did so in the fervent hope and be.lief that our hopes for self-government would sorne day materialize. When I again appeared before the Council several years later as a member of the Marianas
Political statua Commission, I did so in anticipation that the Commonwealth
Covenant would finally fulfil our hopes, dreams and aspirations for self-government. However, as I appear before the Council today, I must regretfully submit that local self-government, which is so important and so symbolic to us, has, unfortunately, been compromised. The high ideals of the United Nations
trusteeship system and trusteeship agreement are thus also compromised.
In examining the history of our Islands we see that our ancestors ruled
themselves and controlled their own destiny for countless centuries before the RM/3 T/PV.l649 25
(Mr. Manglona)
arriva! of the Spanish in the lSUOs. our struggle to regain control almost
resulted in our total annihilation as a people.
severa! centuries later our Islands were sold to Germany. We were afforded no
brief period of freedom. After the First World War Japan came to rule us. we were
pawns on the international chess-board. Our rights to freedom and self-government
remained a distant dream.
Then came the great Pacifie war. We were an innocent people caught helpless
between the exploding firepower of two mighty armies. Our island homes became
hattlefields that were ripped apart, burned, and scarred. Finally, the guns became
silent, and our people saluted another flag. RM/3 T/PV.l649 26
(Mr. Manglona)
The United States Navy Administration governed us under the auspices of the
United Nations. By the terms of article 6 of the Trusteeship Agreement, we were promised self-government or independence. Yet for 40 years more our right to self-government continued to linger unfulfilled.
Finally came the Commonwealth Covenant agreement with our Administering
Authority, the United States. After centuries of denia! our sovereignty over our interna! affairs was to be restored after we negotiated a close alliance with the
United States. At arm's length we negotiated to delegate a portion of our sovereignty to the united States because of its strategie interests in the western
Pacifie. Those interests were our bargaining chip. We gave the united States control over our defence and foreign affairs. We even agreed to allow the United
States to use·some of our very limited land resources for national security purposes.
The intent of the Covenant agreement, however, was that our people should keep what we bad so long desired: control over our interna! affairs. Looking at the auestion in its historical perspective, members of the Council will easily see why self-government is so important to us. Few peoples in the course of the world history have waited so long to regain their freedom and control over their interna! destiny.
so what has gone wrong? Why are we still waiting? Does the Covenant not fulfil the terms of the Trusteeship Agreement in accordance with the freely-expressed wishes of the people of the Northern Marianas? To be sure, our people had faith that this body would ensure our right to interna! sovereignty.
But disturbing signs in our relationship with the United States have cast a shadow over these hopes. RM/3 T/PV.l649 27
(Mr. Manglona)
What are those disturbing signs? To be brief, they are as follows: First,
the united States Government says that the territorial clause of the United States
Constitution governs the internal affairs of the Northern Marianas. Second, the
united States has not honoured section 902 of the Covenant, having refused to
negotiate with us on sorne key issues affecting our political relationship. Third,
the united States refuses to grant United States passports to sorne of our deserving
citizens. Fourth, the united States has not honoured section 904 of the Covenant,
having refused to fund the operations of the Commission on Federal Laws. Fifth,
the united States has not honoured section 504 of the Covenant, having refused to
give sympathetic consideration to our views on international matters and trade
agreements. Sixth, the united States has refused to acknowledge our sovereign
claim to sea-bed resources. Seventh, the United States has refused fully to
accomrnodate our concerna regarding headnote 3 (A) issues. Eighth, sorne Federal
officials insist on labeling the Northern Marianas a "Territory" for purposes of
applying Federal statutes to our internal affaira. Ninth, the United States ninth
circuit court has implied that the Covenant agreement might be no more than a
statute of the United States Congress, subject to amendment by subsequent
congresses. Tenth, the United States ninth circuit court has ruled that the
Northern Marianas has no sovereign immunity to suit on Federal statutes, which
opens the door to more Federal interference in our internal affairs. In that
connection, it must he noted that the 50 states of the united States enjoy such
sovereignty. And eleventh, the united States has appointed Federal officials to
the Northern Marianas without prior consultation with our Government.
Those are all disturbing siqns to our Government and our people. ~herefore,
the initiative we present to the Council today was prompted by the erosion of
internal self-government, which, to us, is the basis of our political relationship
with the United States Government. RM/3 T/PV.l649 28
(Mr. Manglona)
We also wish to emphasize that the Northern Marianas holds a uniaue place in
United States history. Of all foreign soil the United States liberated during the
Second World War, only over our islands does the United States flag still fly.
That is hecause of the strategie importance of the Northern Marianas to the united
States. Our acceptance of this fact is recognized in the Covenant's defence and
foreign affairs provisions. Yet to our people it appears that such interests are
hindering our right to interna! self-government.
For the record, we ask the Council to take special note of our intention in
appearing before it. We stand before the Council as United States citizens. We
still have faith that with the Council's help an accommodation can be reached with
the united States to honour the Covenant.
At the same time, experience has shown that the United States can turn a deaf
ear to our concerna. Our pleas for Covenant section-902 negotiations are ignored.
Many of our people are stateless and cannot travel abroad for lack of United States
passports. International matters and trade agreements are conducted on our behalf
without consultation. Federal laws are applied to our islands with no regard for
our interna! self-government.
Therefore we appear here today to ask this Council to lend its weight and
prestige to our legitimate and long-standing concerns with respect to interna!
sovereignty. To be heard and to correct these problems, we need the Council's
help. We are a willing member of the united States political family and we have
given up a measure of our soveignty to join that family. Let me stress, however,
that we never intended to give up our right to internai self-government to
accomplish that goal. RM/3 T/PV.l649 29
(Mr. Manglona)
Furthermore, a matter of special importance to us at this time is the process of the termination of our trusteeship statua. Chapter XII, Article 83 (1) of the united Nations Charter, which pertains to the international Trusteeship system, specifically states that:
"All functions of the United Nations relating to strategie areas,
including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their
alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the Security Council".
I now ask this Council: Has the mandate been fulfilled?
We have waited many centuries to regain our freedom and self-government. we do not want to have these fundamental freedoms denied us ever again, now or in the
future. We trust that the Trusteeship Council today will help us to protect these
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I call next on Mr. Pedro
Guerrero, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Sixth Northern Marianas
Commonwealth Legislature, whose petition is also contained in document T/PET.l0/702.
Mr. GUERRERO: 1 am Pedro R. DeLeon Guerrero, Speaker of the House of the
Sixth Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature. With me today are Representative
Manuel c. Sablan, Representative Juan s. Reyes and Representative Antonio M.
Camacho, who will also be making a presentation before the Council.
On behalf of the people of the Northern Mariana Islands and members of the
House of Representatives, I thank the Council for the opportunity to make this
statement. Last year, I and other members of the task force appeared before the
Council and presented our report on Self-Determination Realized. At that time the RM/3 T/PV.l649 30
(Mr. Guerrero)
Administering Authority said we bad no standing entitling us to appear before the
Council. Today, the task force is appearing with the support of elected members of
the executive and legislative branches, including the Governor, the Resident
Representative of the United States of America, the President of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and other legislators, as well as members of the task force. This showing demonstrates that the task force bas today - as it
bas bad since its statutory inception - the official support and endorsement of our
Government. RM/3 T/PV.l649 31
(Mr. Guerrero)
This demonstration of support clearly underlines the importance of the Task
Force's appearance before the Council and the significance of the issue we are
bringing before it, namely, the sovereignty of the people of the Northern Mariana
Islands. While r fully endorse the report of the Task Force on the termination of
the Trusteeship, I believe it is important to place emphasis on those matters which
have caused the people of the Northern Mariana Islands to wonder whether the
Administering Authority has a clear and unequivocal intent to comply with its
obligation of encouraging self-government, as provided in Article 76 of the United
Nations Charter and article 6 of the Trusteeship Agreement. It is the
Administering Authority's handling of these matters of concern which has led the
legislature to believe that the Trust Territory of the Pacifie Islands cannet be
terminated until the Administering Authority satisfies the Council that it will not
interfere in matters of local concern.
Our people no longer have confidence in the Administering Authority's
intention to comply with the provisions of the Covenant to establish a Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands in political union with the United States of
America. The following are sorne examples of the actions of the Administering
Authority that cast doubt on its intent to comply with Article 76. First,
passports: the Administering Authority has failed to comply with section 301 of
the Covenant by not extending United States citizenship to all qualified residents
of the Northern Mariana Islands. Let me give an example of one auch case.
Joaauin I. Pangelinan, a former elected member of the saipan Municipal Council,
Speaker of the Northern Marianas House of Representatives, member of the Marianas
Political Statua Commission and a signator of the Covenant; he was born and reared
in the Northern Mariana Islands and is a persan with a deep admiration for the
United States of America. ~he United States Department of Immigration has stated
he cannet be a united States citizen because beth of his parents were born in RM/3 T/PV.l649 32
(Mr. Guerrero)
Japan. This is a clear violation of article III of the Covenant. The case of
Joaquin Pangelinan is not uniaue. There are hundreds of our people who have been wrongfully denied United States passports. These violations of the Covenant have caused them to be stateless persons. Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states that every person is entitled to a nationality. I urge the
Council to recornmend the granting of tJnited Nations passports so that these people can travel freely throughout the world.
A second example is failure to negotiate. The internal-sovereignty issue has been exacerbated by the failure of the Administering Authority to comply with section 902 of the Covenant, which reauires regular and continuous consultations on all matters affecting the relationshp between our people and the Administering
Authority.
A third is the territorial clause. Another serious area of concern in our relationship with the Administering Authority is that the executive branch of the
Administering Authority, contrary to section SUl of the Covenant, takes the position that the territorial clause of the United States Constitution governs the manner in which the Administering Authority applies its laws to the people of the
Northern Mariana Islands. The territorial clause of the United States
Constitution, article IV, section 3, is a section of that Constitution which gives authority to the united States Congress to make laws, rules and regulations for the
Administering Authority•s territories and possessions. Despite the fact that the territorial clause was deliberately excluded from the Covenant, the Justice and
Interior Departments of the Administering Authority maintain that the territorial clause is applicable to the people of the Northern Mariana Islands. Neither the land, the ocean, the sea-bed resources nor the inhabitants of the Northern Mariana
Islands have ever been a territory or a possession of the United States. The continued assertion by the Administering Authority that the territorial clause RM/3 T/PV.l649 33
(Mr. Guerrero) governs the political relationship between it and the people of the Northern
Mariana Islands is a serious obstacle to the termination of the trusteeship by the
Security Council. What our people ask is that the Trusteeship Council examine the facts and state for the record that the trusteeship cannot be terminated until the united States is in compliance with the Covenant, with Article 76 of the United
Nations Charter and with article 6 of the Trusteeship Agreement.
The fourth exarnple is the Commission on Federal Laws. The failure of the
Administering Authority to finance the work of the Commission on Federal Laws, as
required by section 504 of the Covenant, is another exarnple of the Administering
Authority's lack of compliance with Article 76 of the United Nations Charter. This
is because in order fully to implement self-government the Northern Mariana people
must be informed as to the applicability of federal laws. The work of the
Commission is to make recommendations as to which laws of the Administering
Authority are, or are not, applicable to the Northern Mariana Islands, which laws
should be applicable and to what extent they should be applicable. oespite the
cleare language of section 504 of the Covenant that the Administering Authority
shall bear the cost of the work of the Commission, that promise has not been kept.
The work of the Commission on Federal Laws is essential to the Northern
Mariana Islands because of the proliferation of laws of the United States Congress
and the regulations of numerous federal agencies and the many attempts to make
federal laws applicable to local issues. Without an adeauate budget the Commission
cannot keep pace with the number of laws and regulations coming from the
Administering Authority.
Other points of dispute remain between the people of the Northern Mariana
Islands and the Administering Authority. For example, the Administering Authority
refuses to consult or acknowledge the claims of the people of the Northern Marianas
to its sea-bed resources. In addition, the Administering Authority, in violation RM/3 T/PV.l649 34-35
(Mr. Guerrero) of section 904 of the Covenant, has failed to give sympathetic consideration to the views of the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands regarding an international trade agreement with Canada.
There are other areas of major concern between the Administering Authority and the people of the Northern Mariana Islands that require discussion. The foregoing problems themselves, coupled with the Administering Authority's failure to appoint a special representative, reveal a pattern of conduct which is inconsistent with the duties and responsibilities of the Administering Authority under Article 76, which are to promote the political, economie, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Administering Authority fails to give the people of the Northern Mariana Islands the respect to which they are entitled as a self-governing people. This is a fundamental denial of that right to self-government of the people of the Northern Mariana Islands. RM/3 T/PV.l649 36
(Mr. Guerrero)
we are not here before the Trusteeship Council to auibble with the
Administering Authority over our differences with it. These problems are serious: so serious that a Northern Mariana Islands initiative was adopted in November of last year providing that, should matters of self-government or financial assistance not be resolved ~y 1 July 1989, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands would have the right to reaffirm, reject or renegotiate the Covenant. That initiative passed by a more than 75 per cent margin. In addition, legislation was recently introduced in the Northern Mariana Islands House of Representatives to terminate the Covenant. Those actions are indisputable evidence that the people of the
Northern Mariana Islands are seriously dissatisfied with the progress of the relationship between them and the Administering Authority.
While it is true that section 903 of the Covenant provides that Covenant disputes can be brought into the United States judicial system by either side, recent Federal decisions have left open the possibility of the territorial clause applying to the Northern Mariana Islands.
For exarnple, a recent case was decided, in two opinions by the United States court of appeals, ninth circuit. The first opinion suggested reference to the
applicability of the territorial clause to the Northern Mariana Islands. Upon
reauest for reconsideration of its decision by the Government of the Northern
Mariana Islands, supported by an amicus brief from the legislature, the same court
amended its decision to omit any reference to the territorial clause, without
deciding the issue of its applicability. We in the Northern Mariana Islands do not
have confidence in the wisdom of the Federal judiciary. Beth decisions in this
case indicate that the Federal judiciary has not done the research reauired to
reach a fair and eauitable decision on the issue of the applicability of the
territorial clause. This saddens and disappoints our people, for they have worked RM/3 T/PV.l649 37
(Mr. Guerrero) so hard to establish their integrity and sovereignty only to find that the judiciary of the Administering Authority can totally disregard the intent of the
Covenant and the history of the Northern Mariana Islands.
We corne before the Council once again to ask it not to terrninate the
Trusteeship prernaturely. We need the oversight of the United Nations. The Council will decide to recomrnend continuation or terrnination of the Trusteeship. To reach its decision it will look for compliance or non-compliance with the terrns of the
Trusteeship Agreement. In the report of the Task Force on the Terrnination of the
Trusteeship, the Task Force asked that the Adrninistering Authority respond, by staternent, to the issue of sovereignty and self-rule of the people of the Northern
Mariana Islands. We want a strong staternent by the Administering Authority rejecting any desire on its part to rule in our internai rnatters. we want a cornrnitrnent from the Adrninistering Authority that it will cornply in good faith with all the provisions of the Covenant. We want acknowledgernent by the Adrninistering
Authority that it cannat unilaterally terrninate United Nations oversight without approval from the Security Council.
We have travelled so far to appear before the Council because we believe that the Trusteeship bas not been terrninated and that as overseeing body it bas the duty to examine whether our right to self-governrnent as affirrned by the United Nations
Charter and the Trusteeship Agreement bas been encouraged and supported by the
Adrninistering Authority. Our negotiators bargained long and hard for the
Covenant. When the people of the Northern Marianas voted for the Covenant they did so with the assurance that they were voting for self-governrnent. They did not expect the Adrninistering Authority to betray its cornrnitrnent.
we have witnessed the Adrninistering Authority chip away sorne of the essential cornrnitrnents under the Covenant agreement. We want the United Nations to delay its RM/3 T/PV.l649 38
(Mr. Guerrero)
approval of final termination of the Trusteeship and wait until the Administering
Authority and the people of the Northern Mariana Islands can return to this body
and state that we are working to resolve our differences in a spirit of mutual
respect between two sovereign entities. Only then will it be appropriate for the
united Nations to discharge the Administering Authority from its responsibility
under the United Nations Trusteeship.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I cal! next on Mr. Pedro M.
Atalig, Chairman of the Northern Mariana Islands Task Force on the Termination of
the Trusteeship, whose petition appears in document T/PET.lU/714.
Mr. ATALIG: Accompanying me today are Mr. Larry Hillblum, Vice-Chairman
of the Task Force, Mr. Elias Okamura, a member of the Task force, and Mr. Peter
Donnesey, our legal advisor.
I want to thank members of the Council for the opportunity to speak here
today. We acknowledge that statements I shall make today will be at odds with the
views and position of the Administering Authority. With years of experience under
this administration we have learned to call it as it is: if it is a spade, we ca11
it a spade and nothing else.
Last year, the Task Force on the Termination of the Trusteeship appeared
before the Trusteeship Council. At that time we expressed our concern that the
Administering Authority was beginning to ignore section 103 of the Covenant, the
provision preserving the authority of the people and the Government of the Northern
Mariana Islands over local and interna! affaira. That section was the most
important provision to the people of the Northern Mariana Islands. At the time of
our appearance before the Council we were given assurances by Ambassador Byrne that the Administering Authority intended to carry out its obligations under the United
Nations Charter, the Trusteeship Agreement and the Covenant regarding the RM/3 T/PV.l649 39
(Mr. Atalig) obligation found in Article 76 of the Charter and mirrored throughout the other agreements affecting the Northern Mariana Islands.
It was a mistake to have relied upon the Ambassador•s assurances. The
Administering Authority states that it intends to govern the Northern Mariana
Islands through the territorial clause, an ancient colonial provision of the United
States Constitution. This in effect would oust the Government of the Northern
Mariana Islands and replace it with the Government of the Administering Authority.
Therefore, section 103 of the Covenant would he rendered void and the Nocthern
Mariana Islands would be governed without input from the people in violation, further, of article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, found in
General Assembly resolution 217 A (III)i article 1 of the International Covenant on
Economie, Social and Cultural Rights, General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI) of
16 December 1966 which entered into force on 3 January 1976; article XX of the
American Delcaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, resolution XXX of the
Organization of American States COAS) adopted by the ninth International Conference of American States held at Bogota in 1948i and article 23 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, signed on 22 November 1969 and entered into force on
18 July 1978.
For the first 10 years of the Covenant, with respect to the relationship between the Administering Authority and the people of the Northern Marianas, the people were led into believing that they retained the right of self-government as that term is understood and defined in General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV). That is, the Northern Mariana Islands would govern its interna! affaira under a
Government and Constitution of the inhahitants of the Northern Mariana Islands.
The Administering Authority was given authority over foreign affaira and defence, as set out in section 104 of the Covenant. RM/3 T/PV.l649 40
(Mr. Atalig)
It appears that there was a secret agenda to wait until United Nations
oversight was over, and then strip the Northern Mariana Islands of
self-government. As demonstrated in many newspaper articles, it is clear from the
Administering Authority's statements that the Administering Authority, acting under
the territorial clause, and not the locally-elected Government would run the
internal affaira of the Northern Mariana Islands. As the Marianians have no vote
in the Government of the Administering Authority, the effect of this is that they
have no volee in their own affaira. The Northern Mariana Islands is no longer a
Commonwealth, but rather a mere colony which is run from top to hottom by the
Administering Authority. That violates the principles of democracy and
self-government demanded in the Charter, the Trusteeship Agreement and the Covenant. RM/3 T/PV .1649 41
(Mr. Atalig)
The issue was of sufficient~y grave concern to the people of the Northern
Mariana Islands that in the November 1987 general election they voted by a
75 per cent margin to ask the Trusteeship Council to make it clear in any termination resolution that the obligations under Article 76 of the Charter and article 6 of the Trusteeship Agreement, as mirrored in section 103 of the Covenant, must be complied with hefore United Nations oversight can end. The people want assurances from the Administering Authority before the world community in any terminating resolution that the principles of self-government will be honoured.
The people of the Northern Mariana Islands oppose forma! termination of the
Trusteeship Agreement and an end to United Nations oversight without a clear, unambiguous understanding and statement from the Administering Authority that the territorial clause cannet replace section 103 of the Covenant.
Last year the Administering Authority refused to deal forthrightly with this issue, which we presented to the Trusteeship Council. We ask whether it is the intention of the Administering Authority to govern the Northern Mariana Islands under the territorial clause. Without a clear commitment that the colonial powers will not be used, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands reserve the right to reject any political union which promises self-government but which is· intended to be colonial.
We suspect from last year•s experience that the Administering Authority will take the position that the matters we raise are interna! and not subject to the oversight of this Council. That is untenable. Article 76 of the Charter and article 6 of the Trusteeship Agreement commit this body to ensuring that no trusteeship is terminated until self-govenment is realized. This body must be satisfied that any relationship meets the criteria of General Assembly resolution
1541 (XV). Although section 103 of the Covenant has language equivalent to that of RM/3 T/PV.l649 42
(Mr. Atalig} resolution 1541 (XV}, the Administering Authority now claims that the territorial clause is the real provision governing the relationship. If that is true, the
Council cannot terminate the Trust without violating Article 76 of the Charter and article 6 of the Trusteeship Agreement.
We also suspect that the Administering Authority's position will be that the
Trusteeship Agreement has been terminated and that there is no remedy and no appeal to this Council or the Security Council concerning our position that the issue of self-government must be clearly resolved by the Administering Authority prior to termination of United Nations oversight. There can be no forma! termination without the approval of the Security Council. If the Administering Authority were to terminate the Trusteeship unilaterally without the agreement of the Security
Council and compliance with the principles of Article 76 of the Charter and article 6 of the Trusteeship Agreement, auch action would be invalid. we urge members of the Trusteeship Council and the Security Council to raise the question of the validity of any unilateral termination in the light of the landmark case involving the international status of Namibia, in which the International Court of
Justice in 1950 held unanimously that
"the Union of South Africa acting alone does not possess the competence to
modify the international statua of the Territory of south-West Africa".
We helieve that the finding in that case is binding on the issue of termination of the Trusteeship of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Administering
Authority cannot be a fair judge of its own compliance with the Trusteeship
Agreement and the CharterJ that is the role of the Trusteeship Council and the Security Council.
In the past two years the Administering Authority has become a second seat of
government in the Northern Mariana Islands which regulates local and internal RM/3 T/PV.l649 43
(Mr. Atalig) matters specifically reserved for the people and Government of the Northern Mariana
Islands by the Covenant. This second seat of government has begun a slow and
deliberate process of ousting and taking over the functions of the elected local
Government. We find ourselves in the unenviable position of being governed by a
legislature and executive unelected by the inhabitants of the Northern Mariana
Islands. This rule by edict was not contemplated by the Covenent or by section 2
of the Congressional resolution approving the Covenant.
We cannot understand the reluctance of the Administering Authority to abide by
the simple and straightforward provisions of the Covenant, section 103 of which
provides that the people of the Northern Mariana Islands will have the right of
local self-government and will govern themselves with respect to interna! affairs
in accordance with a Constitution of their own adoption. Section 104 provides that
the united states will have complete responsibility for and authority with respect
to matters relating to foreign affairs and defence affecting the Northern Mariana
Islands.
The principles of those sections are consonant with General Assembly
resolution 1541 (XV). As the people of the Northern Mariana Islands have no vote
in the Government of the Administering Authority, there has not been full
integration with the Administering Authority. Therefore, section 103 of the
Covanent must meet the test of free association, a position the Administering
Authority previously advocated.
The Task Force on the Termination of the Trusteeship, a legal entity created
by Northern Marianas statute, urges that this most serious issue be resolved at
this session. we believe it is and will be an injustice to all generations,
present and future, of Northern Marianas inhabitants to leave their right to RM/3 T/PV.l649 44-45
(Mr. Atalig) self-government in doubt. The Administering Authority has no vital interest which justifies anything less than a candid and specifie statement of its intentions regarding the following matters:
First, does the Administering Authority intend to govern the Northern Marianas by the covenant or by the territorial clause?
Second, does the Administering Authority agree that the self-government commitment in section 103 of the Covenant is eauivalent to the concept of self-government as found in Article 76 of the Charter and article 6 of the
Trusteeship Agreement?
Third, does the Administering Authority agree that without representation in the Bouse and Senate of the United States and a vote for the President, the
Northern Mariana Islands are not integrated with the Administering Authority as that term is understood in General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV)?
Fourth, does the Administering Authority agree that it cannot legislate on matters of interna! self-government reserved to the people of the Commonwealth as specified in section 103 of the Covenant? RM/3 T/PV.l649 46
(Mr. Atalig)
Fifthly, does the Administering Authority agree that without giving the
Northern Mariana Islands people a vote in its Congress it cannat pursue any attempt to legislate on interna! matters in the Northern Mariana Islands, and that any attempt by the Administering Authority to control such interna! matters would be inconsistent with (a) the United Nations CharterJ (b) the Trusteeship AgreementJ
(c) the Administering Authority•s own position on basic human rights; and (d) the
Covenant, which establishes the political union with the United States?
Sixthly, does the Administering Authority agree that it cannat unilaterally terminate United Nations oversight without the approval of the Security Council?
The people of the Northern Marianas voted by more than 75 per cent to reserve the right to reject or renegotiate the Covenant if the Administering Authority did not agree to honour, as a matter of international law, the Northern Mariana
Islands' inherent right to self-government.
The initiative reauires that the Northern Mariana Islands be in a position to reject any political union promising self-government but intended to be colonial.
I wish to read for the record page S-6 of the 9 October 1963 report to the
President of the United States authorized by National Security Action Memorandum
No. 243, dated 9 May 1963. It is as follows:
"There are, however, uniaue elements in the delicate problem of
Micronesia and the attainment of our objectives that urgently require the
agreement now of the President and the Congress as to the guidelines for
United States action over the next few years. First, the United States will
be moving counter to an anti-colonial movement that has just about completed
sweeping the world and will be breaching its own policy since World War I of
not acauiring new territorial possessions if it seeks to make Micronesia a
united states territory. Second, of all eleven United Nations trusteeships, RM/3 T/PV.l649 47
(Mr. Atalig)
this will be the only one not to terminate in independence or merger with a
contiguous country, but is a territorial affiliation with the administering
Power. Third, as the only •strategie trusteeship', the Security Council will
have jurisdiction over the formal termination of the trusteeship agreement,
and if auch a termination is vetoed there, the United States might have to
decide to proceed with a series of actions that would make the trusteeship
agreement a dead issue, at least from the Micronesian viewpoint."
It is clear from the above that it has been the agenda of the Administering
Authority since as early as 1963, first, to ignore the obligation to seek a valid
termination of the trusteeship, and, secondly, to turn the Northern Mariana Islands
into a non-self-governing colony of the Administering Authority. Both of these
objectives are in clear violation of the United Nations Charter, the Trusteeship
Agreement and the Covenant. It is a clear and deliberate violation which has the
effect of denying the Northern Mariana Islands the most basic of all human rights -
democracy.
It is most difficult for the inhabitants of the Northern Mariana Islands to
understand why the Administering Authority insista on human rights as a foreign
policy matter but denies the very same, fundamental human rights to the inhabitants
of the Northern Mariana Islands.
It would be unfortunate, following the successful termination of 10
trusteeships in accordance with international law, to permit this one to terminate
in violation of Article 76 of the Charter and article 6 of the Trusteeship Agreement.
Without decisive action by the Trusteeship Council, the Northern Mariana Islands will be the only trusteeship to end in colonial statua, governed internally
hy lawmakers 7,000 miles removed from the unrepresented people, who then become
mere subjects of the Administering Authority. RM/3 T/PV.l649 48
(Mr. Atalig)
As we appear here today, the trusteeship is not terminated. It cannot be
unilaterally terminated by the Administering Authority. Its attempt improperly to end the trusteeship puts the Administering Authority in the same ranks as south
Africa, whose attempt unilaterally to terminate the trusteeship status of south-West Africa was universally recognized as a violation of fundamental principles of international law.
We ask that the Trusteeship Council not recommend termination and that the
Security Council not terminate trusteeship until such time as the Northern Mariana
Islands are realistically guaranteed self-government in interna! affairs, as mandated by the United Nations in the Trusteeship Agreement and by the Covenant
itself.
We take this strong position, not as an affront to the Administering
Authority, but only in our belief that the people of the Administering Authority and most of its Government officials would stand for the same ideas in our position and would not approve of this result. We believe it is an accident of the
Administering Authority's bureaucracy which results in this injustice. But the injustice exists and must be remedied.
In February 1988 a representative of the United States Government appeared before the united states District Court in Saipan and stated "It's time to call a spade ••• ". The United States Government argued most explicitly that it was the
Administering Authority's legal position that the territorial clause of the United
States Constitution did apply to the Northern Mariana Islands.
What does this mean to the inhabitants of the Northern Mariana Islands? The territorial clause - Article IV, Section 3(2) - of the United States Constitution states: RM/3 T/PV.l649 49
(Mr. Atalig)
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and rnake all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the
United States".
The legal position of the United States and its Departrnent of Justice, then,
is that the Northern Mariana Islands and its people are mere items of property that
can be governed by any rule or regulation which Congress deems appropriate.
So, Mr. President, and members of the Trusteeship Council, you can see why we
are here, in desperation, and have petitioned this eminent body for relief.
The notion that the territorial clause can be used to regulate the local and
internal affairs of the Northern Mariana Islands is completely contrary to the
principles of self-government which the United Nations, the Trusteeship Council and
the Trusteeship Agreement guarantee.
To apply the territorial clause to the Northern Mariana Islands is an affront
to us and to the United Nations, and nullifies the most important provision of the
Covenant - our right to govern ourselves. It would convert the statua of the
Northern Mariana Islands to a situation worse than colonialism; it would make us no
more than mere property of the United States, to be treated as the whim of the
Administering Authority dictates.
We have no representation in the United states Congress. While we have
willingly delegated to the Administering Authority full power over our military,
national security and international affairs, we have retained our right to
self-government in our own interna! affairs.
We respectfully petition the Trusteeship Council and the security Council not
to terminate the trusteeship without assuring our people that we will not become a RM/3 T/PV.l649 su
(Mr. Atalig) colony of the Administering Authority, or, worse yet, be treated as a mere possession or property of the United States.
I should like to make sorne concluding observations about the nature of our poli tical union. ' RM/3 T/PV.l649 51
(Mr. Atalig)
First, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands have no vote or
participation in the Administering Authority's government.
Secondly, to ensure basic human rights and compliance with the concepts of
democracy, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands negotiated to preserve the
right of internal self-government without interference by the Administering
Authority. This is the most fundamental provision of the entire Covenant. This
provision serves as the Commonwealth's only protection against being moulded into a
colony of the Administering Authority.
Thirdly, the Administering Authority, in order to secure the continuance of
the political union between itself and the people of the Northern Mariana Islands
is to select a representative to negotiate all matters affecting the relationship
between them - under section 902 of the Covenant - and may not unilaterally impose
any legislation affecting internal self-government on the Northern Mariana Islands.
Fourthly, we believe that with the help of this body and the good faith of all
the parties, the problems we describe in our statements today can be resolved. We
only ask that the post-colonial Charter and Trusteeship Agreements guide the
political union contemplated by the Covenant and that the people of the Northern
Mariana Islands be accorded their right to self-government, demanded by basic
principles of democracy so often championed in this great institution.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I now call on
Mr. Antonio Camacho, Member of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, whose petition appears in document T/PET.lU/715.
Mr. CAMACHO: I am Antonio M. Camacho, a member of the House of
Representatives of the Sixth Northern Marianas Legislature. RM/3 T/PV.l649 52
(Mr. Camacho)
I wish to thank you, Mr. President, and the other members of the Council for allowing me to make this individual statement. I asked to make these comments because the presentation of the Task Force on the Termination of the Trusteeship does not go far enough in expressing the depth of the betrayal that the Northern
Marianas people feel regarding their political union with the Administering
Authority. I agree with the basic position of the Task Force on the Termination of the Trusteeship, that the Administering Authority should not be allowed to terminate that portion of the Trusteeship dealing with the Northern Marianas. I also represent a growing body of Northern Marianas people who believe that the
Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political
Union with the United States of America should be terminated in order that we might reassert our status as a sovereign people.
I am a simple man, and so I want to speak simply about the unspoken issue between the Administering Authority and the people of the Northern Marianas. That issue is freedom. We are tired of being told how to govern our lives. Let me put that into historical context. We were first colonized more than 400 years ago and we have not, to this date, ever been totally free as a people. Admirably, the united Nations took us under its protective cloak and dubbed us part of a United
Nations trusteeship. Yet even then we were not asked whether we wanted to be a part of any trusteeship. The truth is that we were part of the war booty won by the Administering Authority. In the spirit of the times, it began to govern our lives as a trustee under a United Nations trusteeship. But calling us a trusteeship did not change the fact that we were still a subjugated people, still prevented from exercising the most precious right of all: the right to freedom.
The political origin of the Administering Authority is found in the most succinct and powerful statement of human rights ever recorded: the Declaration of RM/3 T/PV.l649 53
(Mr. Camacho)
Independence. Independence, of course, is a synonym for freedom. It is ironie that the Administering Authority, born politically out of a desire to be free, is now, whether by design or not, reluctant to have the people of the Northern
Marianas freely govern themselves. Has the Administering Authority forgotten that its people began a revolution because of the oppressive and intrusive nature of
British laws? Has it forgotten that its noble Declaration of Independence declares that the people have the right to alter or "abolish" the existing form of government when a government does not effectively assist its people to attain their fundamental rights?
Article 76 of the United Nations Charter says that a basic objective of the trusteeship system shall be
"to promote ••• progressive development towards self-government or
independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each
territory and its peoples .. . " . Article 6.3 of the Trusteeship Agreement states that another responsibility of the
Administering Authority is to
"protect the rights and fundamental freedoms of all elements of the population
without discrimination".
From the following examples it should be clear that the Administering Authority is
not progressively promoting self-government or protecting the rights and
fundamental freedoms of the Northern Marianas people.
First, the Covenant is not just another federal law. It is an Executive
Agreement between the Chief Executive of the Administering Authority and the people
of the Northern Marianas, approved by the Adrninistering Authority's Congress. Yet
when the Administering Authority's judicial system recently spoke on the nature of
the Covenant it stated that RM/3 T/PV .1649 54
(Mr. Camacho)
"the Congress enacted the Covenant as law".
That decision was later modified in an amended opinion, and the language referring to the Covenant was changed to say that
"Congress thereafter approved the Covenant".
While the change from "enacted" to "approved" is correct, it was done without any comment hy the court. This kind of judicial flip-flop does not instil confidence in the Northern Marianas people that their fundamental rights will be protected hy the judicial system of the Administering Authority. This is crucial, because, according to section 903 of the Cove.nant, it is that judicial system which will decide legal disputes between the Administering Authority and the Northern Marianas people regarding the Covenant. Frankly, I would have preferred the World Court to be the judge in these disputes.
The Congress of the Administering Authority is also to blame for not recognizing the authority of the Covenant. One example is Public Law 97-357.
Section 203(b) states that it is not subject to termination under section 5U2(a) (3) of the Covenant, even though that is the stated effect of section 502(a) (3). This is a clear and callous attempt unilaterally to amend the Covenant despite clear language in the Covenant to the contrary. Moreover, the Northern Marianas people will have to go to court to undo this federal legislative mistake.
Additionally, in the appendix to this statement - which bas been provided to the Council - there are two proposed bills from each House of the Administering
Authority's federal legislature which seek to amend the Covenant. This is evidence of an attempt to undermine an agreement between two sovereign peoples. This kind of Congressional action suggests that the federal legislature considers the
Covenant to he just another federal law that it can unilaterally amend at will. RM/3 T/PV.l649 55
(Mr. Camacho)
This action also suggests a federal intent which is inconsistent with the pledge of both parties that the Covenant shall be mutually binding, and is inconsistent with
Article 6 of the Trusteeship Agreement and Article 76 of the United Nations Charter.
Secondly, there is the matter of interference with the administration of local government. While the agreement for financial assistance to the Northern Marianas from the Administering Authority, as found in sections 701 through 704 of the
Covenant, was supported by language stating that the Administering Authority gave its full faith and credit in support of the promised payments, the Department of the Interior of the Administering Authority has added so many conditions to the
promised assistance that the payments are severa! years behind the original
schedule of the Covenant.
Thirdly, I come to the auestion of denial of passports. As many as 1,000
inhabitants of the Northern Marianas are currently without passports due to an
interpretation by the Administering Authority's Department of Immigration that
certain persona who have foreign-born parents do not qualify for passports. This
decision means that these people are currently without a nationality - a clear
violation of Article 15 of the United Nations Charter, which says that every person
has the right to a nationality. RM/3 T/PV.l649 56
(Mr. Camacho)
Fourthly, there is failure to consult regularly. Section 902 of the Covenant provides that upon reauest of either party, the Administering Authority and the people of the Northern Marianas shall
"consult regularly on all matters affecting the relationship between them".
Despite the mounting list of differences over the Covenant and other crucial issues, the Administering Authority has not met with the Northern Marianas representatives since August 1987. Severa! demands for section 902 discussions have been made by the Northern Marianas, with no satisfactory response. This condescending attitude on the part of the Administering Authority does not bode well for the sovereignty of the Northern Marianas people.
The foregoing examples represent a portion of the growing list of grievances affecting the sovereignty of the Northern Marianas people vis-à-vis the
Administering Authority. As a result of these numerous and continuing violations of the Covenant and the expressed dissatisfaction of many of my constituents, I have introduced legislation for a referendum to be held this November to terminate the Covenant. If the Administering Authority does not respect the basic freedoms and self-governing status of the people of the Northern Marianas, it is time to set our own course for our future, without the unwanted interference and subtle domination of the Administering Authority.
To conclude, this is not the time to terminate the Trusteeship Agreement. The
Council has the responsibility to discharge the obligations of the Administering
Authority only when it has demonstrated a good-faith intention to fulfil its obligations to promote the basic freedoms and self-governing status of the Northern
Marianas people. The Administering Authority has lost touch with the very principles which are the foundation of its government and which all the peoples of the world share in common: basic human rights. We are new to the world of RM/3 T/PV.l649 57
(Mr. Carnacho) international relations, but it does not take worldliness to know the difference between a once-good intention and a failed cornrnitrnent. It does not reauire sophistication to recognize when sorneone genuinely encourages freedorn and when he interferes with it.
Until the Adrninistering Authority complies with the letter and spirit of the
Trusteeship Agreement and the Covenant and acknowledges that the political
relationship between it and the Northern Marianas people is one of free
association, the Trusteeship should not be terrninated.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): We have beard the last
speaker on the list of petitioners for this meeting.
1 shall now call on those rnernbers of the Council who wish to put auestions to
the petitioners. One petitioner, Mr. Butler, bas bad to leave, but I think he will
be available to answer auestions tornorrow. All the other petitioners are still
here.
Mr. BEREZOVSKY (Union of soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from
Russian): We have today heard sorne very important staternents by petitioners on the
subject of the Trust Territory of the Pacifie Islands. The information they have
subrnitted is very serious. The soviet delegation would like to know whether we may
receive copies of all the staternents made today as soon as possible. we know that
under the rules of procedure records of the meeting are supposed to be published
within 24 hours of the end of the meeting. If that tirne-lirnit were observed that
would help us study in depth the very serious information we have received today
from the petitioners and then put questions to those petitioners.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): 1 am inforrned that it may
take severa! days before the records of the meeting become available. Therefore,
we face a practical problem. The petitioners have come a long way. They are RM/3 T/PV.l649 58-60
(The President) here today to answer our auestions. I do not know whether it would be possible for
them to await to be asked auestions in a few days' time and, if so, how long.
Perhaps it would be possible at least to ask a few questions today and return later with further auestions.
Mr. BEREZOVSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from
Russian): The Soviet delegation, as always, has a very constructive attitude
towards the Council's work. We are prepared to study the material at the outset in
English and not wait for the translation; we can use the English text. But I
repeat that the information we have received today is very important. We have been
told that the Administering Authority is not fulfilling its obligations to the
Micronesian people. Moreover, we learn that even those provisions of the Covenant
that the Administering Authority agreed to and has defended at previous sessions of
the Council seem to be - to use parliamentary language - merely misleading the
people of Micronesia. That is a very serious matter. RM/3 T/PV.l649 61
(Mr. Berezovsky, USSR)
The situation in the Trust Territory requires very serious attention and
consideration by the Trusteeship Council. I think we should give attentive study
to today's statements by representatives of the people of the Northern Marianas.
In conversations before today's meeting we were given unofficially to
understand that we would be given the opportunity to hear oral petitions and ask
auestions of the petitioners. I believe there will be many auestions addressed
both to the petitioners and to the Administering Authority about the situation in
the Trust Territory of the Pacifie Islands.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I am informed by the
Secretary that the English texts of the petitions, with the exception of the text
of Mr. Butler's staternent, could be made available immediately. Members would thus
be able to study the presentations.
The Secretariat bas assured me that it would do all it could to expedite the
publication of the verbatim record. Much depends, of course, on how long the
petitioners would be able to remain. If they are prepared to stay for severa!
days, members would have more time to consider the auestions that they may wish to
ask.
We can in any event devote the remaining time today to a few questions, if
there are any. Then perhaps tomorrow afternoon or Friday morning we could continue
the auestioning of today's petitioners, at least those who would have remained with
us.
Mr. PASCAL (France) (interpretation from French): At this stage, I
should like to comment briefly on the statements we just heard. First of all, I
was pleased to hear petitions under agenda item 5 presented orally. That is a perfectly natural practice and is provided for in our rules of procedure. RM/3 T/PV.l649 62
(Mr. Pascal, France)
I was particularly interested to note that statements were made by representatives of the inhabitants of the Trust Territory of the Pacifie Islands, for it is the fate of those inhabitants that concerns us. I noted also that at least one non-governmental organization from outside the Territory was able to travel auite freely to Palau, thanks to facilities provided by the Administering
Authority.
Whether the petitions were submitted by inhabitants of the Territory or by others, the statements we heard today are sure to enrich our work and are a source of satisfaction to us.
Through you, Sir, I wish to thank those who have come here.
With your permission, I reser.ve the right to speak again under agenda item 5.
Mr. BEREZOVSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from
Russian): I thank the Secretariat staff for its efficiency in making available to us the texts of petitioners' presentations; we are glad to hear that documents will be processed as auickly as possible.
1 wish at this stage to ask one question of the petitioners from the Northern
Mariana Islanns. In their statements, the petitioners said that the Administering
Authority has been refusing, if I remember rightly, for a year or 18 months to hold consultations with representatives of the Northern Mariana Islands on matters relating to the political future of that part of the Territory. Could one of the petitioners tell us what arguments have been put forward by the Administering
Authority to justify this? How does the Administering Authority explain its reluctance to pursue talks with the inhabitants of the Trust Territory?
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I call on Mr. Tenorio. RM/3 T/PV.l649 63-65
Mr. TENORIO: I thank the representative of the soviet Union for his
question, to which I, as Chairrnan of the Marianas representatives to the
section-902 consultations, shall respond.
We have had various consultations in the past, but as we indicated in our
staternents those consultations were suspended around March of last year because the
person appointed by the President of the United States to represent the United
states resigned his position. Even before we knew his position was vacant, we had
asked the Adrninistering Authority to appoint another representative, simply because
we felt the consultations could not afford the luxury of being postponed any
further, given the seriousness of the issues then under discussion. we wanted to
keep the mornentum of the bilateral talks and consulations. We felt this was in the
spirit of good faith and in the interest of both the Administering Authority and
the Northern Mariana Islands.
Unfortunately, even after a series of official communications from our
Governrnent to the united States we were never provided with a definitive response
about the appointment of such a person. We have tried many different avenues to
have our auestions answered and our request acted upon by the Administering
Authority, but to no avail. RM/3 T/PV.l649 66
(Mr. Tenorio)
We have been unsuccessful for over a year in getting the united states to rnake an appointrnent to these talks. We were not given any legitirnate excuse for not appointing a representative; there is no reason I know of that would rnake the united States delay or postpone an appointrnent. I hope that answers the auestion put by the representative of the Soviet Union.
Mr. SMITH (United Kingdorn): First of all, I should like to associate my delegation with the rernarks made by the representative of France, in welcorning the petitioners, who have corne so far to address us.
I should like to ask a question that really follows on from what we have just beard from Goveror Tenorio. We beard sornething about the difficulty in restoring dialogue between the united States Governrnent and the Northern Marianas. I should like to ask the Governor, or indeed any of the other petitioners, whether the prirnary reason they have chosen to bring these rnatters before the Trusteeship
Council is that they have been unable to enter into a direct dialogue with the united States Governrnent.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I call on Governor Tenorio.
Mr. TENORIO: Our reason for bringing the issue of the lack of consultation with the Adrninistering Authority on section 902 of the Covenant is not to force the issue on the Trusteeship Council, but rather to provide an exarnple to the Council of one srnall issue arnong the many, many issues confronting us and concerning the political relationship between our Governrnents that are not being addressed.
It is an exarnple of the things we feel should be addressed because of their importance. We recognize that this is not a Trusteeship Council issue; as I say, it is an example of the reauests we have asked the Administering Authority to address so we can continue the consultations and not have to bring issues before this Council. RM/3 T/PV.l649 67
Mr. SMITH: I have one ether srnall auestion. Sorne of what the
petitioners from the Northern Marianas have told us this afternoon might perhaps be
taken to imply sorne malicious intent on the part of the Administering Authority,
and yetI noticed in Mr. Hillblom's text, which had been incorporated into
Mr. Atalig's staternent, one sentence which rather caught my attention. He said,
"We believe it is an accident of the Administering Authority's bureaucracy
which results in this injustice".(supra, p. 48)
I should like to ask the petitioner to expand a little on what was meant by "an
accident of the Administering Authority's bureaucracy".
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I call upon Mr. Atalig.
Mr. ATALIG: lt is our feeling that the United States stands for the
ideals of self-government and that because of the inefficiency of its bureaucracy
those ideals have not filtered down. As a result of that we are in effect being
treated as a colony under the Administering Authority's bureaucracy. We feel that
the people of the Administering Authority are in faveur of these ideals, but the
bureaucracy which deals on a day-to-day basis with the Northern Mariana Islands
does not follow those ideals.
ORGANIZATION OF WORK
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): The Trusteeship Council will
next meet tomorrow, Thursday 12 May at 10:30 sharp, when we shall hear petitioners
and, perhaps, put auestions to them.
The meeting rose at 5.40 p.rn. Press Release
•••••••••••••••••*••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••a•••••••••e•••••••••ll!••••••••••••••••••••••fill••••••••••aaaa~taaallta•••••••••••••••••••••••H•••••••••••• Department ofPublic Information • Press Section ., New York ...... Trusteeship Council TR/2354 Fifty-fifth session 11 May 1988 1649th Meeting {PM)
TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL HEARS PETITIONERS FROH NORTHERN HARIANAS AND PALAU
Five petitioners from the Northern Mariana Islands appealed to the Trusteeship Council this afternoon not to recommend termination of the Trusteeship Agreement until the right of the people of the Northern liarianas to self-government over their. internal affairs was realized.
The petitioners said that the Administering Authority, the United States, contrary to Section 103 of the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands which guaranteed the rigbt to self-government, claimed tbat the "territorial clause" of the United States Constitution governed the internai affairs of the Northern Harianas.
The Trusteeship Council also beard petitions by representatives of the International Commission of Jurists and the Minority Rights Groups, who said that the legal and legislative processes in Palau had broken down during July to September 1987 when acts of violence and intimidation had been committed against plaintiffs who questioned the validity of the August referendum establishing that the Compact of Free Association could be passed by a simple majority.
The representatives of the Soviet Union, France and the United Kingdom made comments and raised questions on the statements by petitioners.
Also this afternoon, a representative of the Department of Public Information (DPI) introduced a report of the Secretary-General on the dissemination of information on the United Nations and the International Trusteeship System in the Trust Territory of the Pacifie Islands.
The Council will meet again at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, 12 May, to continue to hear statements by petitioners.
{more)
...... 6623P For infonnation media- not an official record Trusteeship Cnuncll - 2 ·- Pr~~s ~~1~ns~ T~/2354 l649th Meeting (PM) 11 rfH.Y FHH:
Cou ne: il':; if.Jod:. Prol';r'<"ttîliï:f' ------~·-·-··-
The Truste~ship Council thi~ afternnnn consid0r0(l dissemination of information on the llnited Nations and the International Trusteeshlp System, and beard stotements by petitioners.
1'1H:~ Co une i 1 hns bd' or~>. i t a report. ot' tite S•~c:rPtary-Gerwral on dls~;emination of lnfnrmùtion on the HniU~d Nation~; nnd the Int.ernntional Trusteeship System in the Trust Territory of the Pnclfic Islonrts, coverinR the per-iod from l Hùy 1987 to 30 April 1988 {document T/19?4).
The rPport stntes thnt the Oepnrtment of Public Information {DPI) bad distributed information mnteriol both directly ta the Trust Territory and theough its information centres, pr.imarily thf• Informn.tion Centre nt Tokyo. The DPI had prodttced 28 press reJenses in Entlish nnd 22 in French deoling wit.h thE:' Trust.e(!~;hip C:ouncll. The Radio Service of DPI ref~ulady di:,tributes to rodio stations in the Tr11st Territory the weekly taped programmes "Perspective'', "Scope" nnd "Women", nnd the monthly tnp~d programme "Asian Spotlir;ht". Tht> nN ChroniclP rf•rortecl on the Tru!.;t.:~e~;hip Council deliberatiom; on the Cornpa,:t-of Frc.•e .1\ssoc:intion for. Palau and on the visltlnB mission~; in t.hf.! Hny, Aur,ust. and Uovf!mbt>r issues.
HMIMOUD F.l.-SAID, a. reprE>sentntivt> üf DPI, introdtH.:inf; thE~ repo<~t, sald that in spite of severe finanrinl const.r~ints, the Director of the lnformatloa Centre in Tokyo l1ad heen ahle this yenr to make a vlsit to Yap, the Republic of Pnlnu and thP Commom.. Jealt.h of t.lw Nort hern Har inna Islnncb nnd had contncted the mRdia in Guam.
WII.LIAM BUTL~R, of the Americon Assncintion for the Int0rnntionol Corr.mission of Jud:;ts, ~:nid the Commission IHtd S(•nt n r:1i:wion to Palnu in January to investlgntP thP apparent thrent to the rule of law in Pnlnu and chorges of interference in the rlghts of individttnl citizens to rnise constitutional qu~stions. The mission hod heen recPivad by the Chief Jttstice of Palau, and it. had intervie\·Jed tltref' Suprenw Court Justices of Palau. It hod nlso held meetings with government officinl6, rnembers of the Bar Associatinn, sorne fttrloughed workers, the letal services representatives, os wd l as o number of l m:yer~;, priest s, t.ü<"tehürs and oUwr ci t lr.ens.
Tt:e ~;ol.f:: concPrn of the Int~'>ennt.ional Commi:;:;ion of Jurists 1rrw the processes of law, the protection of thosP processes, the ri~ht of citizens to raise constitut ionnl questions, and thP rl&ht of clt.iz~ns to h~ve counsel, he said. lt wos not intercsted in the polit.icol questions which wer0 nbundant in Palau, sud1 as thi:' nue] f:•
(more) Truste0ship Cauncil - 3 - Press HeleasA TR/2354 1649th Meet.ing (PK) 11 May 1988
That situnl.ion was not acceptable to the interP~ticnd! l~gal pcocP5s, he said. In addition, during last July and September, th~re hnd h?en direct act~ t>C intirrd.dnt..ion aga.inst the judiciary and the legi::d.atul..'E!, ttot on1y by UH~ Palauan !3overnfil(~nt, but by otiH:T!> Hho \ HP snid hG \1/0S happy to n:~port that the lawsuit. had befm reinstatHd and t.hat t.ht-~ Trinl Division of the Palaunn Cf•Urt hnd dE!t.E~rminE•d that t.he leBi~lntion ollowing the npp~oval of the Compact of Free Association by a simple mnjority was nt&ll and void and unconstltutional. Thot dPcision was now on ttp[HHtl t.o the Supremï.• Court. ond thE> c:ase would prohably be h.-wrd in .Turw or July. The recent events had satisfied the International Commission of .TurisU; tlwt the judida~y in Palau wos iudE•pnndent and trwt tlw lE!gal proe{~[;s was workin~ ngoin. SilE RAR8IT ROFF, n pet1Lioner of th~ Minority Rights Group, soid there wns clear eviden~e thnt the process for chooslng a fttture political status for thE> [H!O[lh! of Pa]üu \vas d~ë!epJ.y flm..;ed. Th('["f.! w.:w denr evidencE> t.hat Lhl~ 1\drnini~;t.erinf; 1\uthority was permittlnr, thi! breakdo'.tm ()f order and the dUE'l proeE•!:s of la~J by it~; proxies in Palau .• in an c~ffort. to intimidntf.' the people into arc~ptinR th0 non-negotlnhle, non-terminnble Compact of Pree Association and its subsidlory ogrnements. The most recent evidRnce of thot brenkdown oppenred in n report to the Anwrican fl.[;soeiation for tlw International Gommi:::slon oï Jurist.s b_y n thrHE•-·mc,mbr-r- rnis~;ion whidt hnd visitNl Palau in Ff~bruary, she c.ontinllE! Tha mission furth~r reported alle~Pd rorrttption atainst prominent Pnloltnns, os well as of use of gov0rnmpnt propprty for privat~ purposes, she l:J(•nt un. It. condudto'd that the Elf'VOtü.h L··~tifd.nt.ive Sef;~;ion for t!w H Thr~ mi~;~;inn 11.L:o hari r.on•·.lud•'d tlut- l·Jw Pnl.fwn.rc Ilar· l\r;;;oc.iation IFtd ra i1 üd ill t.o mn. in tn i. n t.h8 RulE~ c;f L Thn t m.i:; ::ion, t\>i',E' tlH.•r '.vi th ottt(' r :w;~ ot.i at lon:; in Ha:; hi ngton, Il. C. • h nd l!·~oHi'~1t. .:·:·,)ut. t.hü ~;o~;··:.ibiJii:..y for ù fait~ !H>ùrin;~ of tJif• i~;:·aws in tltP Gll[.'I'Nitf> lutt:·~- or F~·lüU, si:(~ [i(1td. s:w astcj thar. t.lw Cct;neil cnz;,_;rf~ t.!wt the =)(!Opl•~ TJ.·usteeshi p Cou ne i 1 Pr@sS Releo~e TR/2354 1649th Meetin~ {PM} 11 May 198B of ?alau were not forcecl to vlolnte their Constitut!oa ~n n~1!er to ensL~e the contlnunnce of public funding that the Administerln3 Authorlty wn~ obliged to provide under the Trusteeship Agreement. Manipulation of public iundinc was nt the root of the civil violence in Palau. In addition, Pnlted States insistence on military access, includlng thot of nuclear-powered and weapnned vessels, wns nt the henrt of lts intrnnslg2nce. PEDRO Il.. TRNORIO, a petitioner, and Lieutenant Governor of the NorUtf.!rn Hadnnn Islands, ~;aid the Govenant b<~t\-JN"n thé 1\dmini~;tering i\u::horit.y and L•8 Northern Marinna Islands had been voted on and passed hy over 7~ pcr cent of the ele~torote on 7 Nnvember 1987. The initiative reaffirmed his peoples' rieht to govern themselve~ with respect to thelr internai nffnirs. The Covütwnt. \·Wr. fully in effect, even thouet. the tr.usteP.ship hacl -rwt lwen officinlly terminoted by the Security Council. Every yeor since 1978, the Northern Morinna Islands hnd requPsted that the Trustef:!~>hip Council and the ll.dmininterinf~ /wthority U!rmlnat.e the TrustC:!e:;!üp Agreem~~nt, but, so fnr, no action hnd betHt tnf:.elt by the U;Jitecl ~Jntions t.o form(tl]y terminal(~ lt, lw Hent on. He was rtf;ain reqtH!Stinr; that the trttsteeship be terminated, but only when language recognizln& the wlshes of his peoplE! wns included ln the Sec.:ud t.y Counci l rE!Solution that vwulrl termina te i t. That lrtnf~UOf,f! Hould :.tate! thnt the Northern Narinrw IsJ.unds Covenont with the llnited Stntes mu~t be understood to gunrantee the ri&ht to internnl self-&overnment. The Helf-government initiative reflected his p~oples' concern nt n series of recent actions by the Administerin8 1\ttthority, which encronchod on their ri&ht to self-&OV0rnment, hf> said. In nn nttempt to resolve disputes with the Ji.dministerirq~ Ji.uthoriry, hi:: Goveenor tw l'he ~l.::: f neto f; u~; [lf!n si on of the c:ons ul tati ons pro vi. dP.d for in Ut\.: Covenan t made him npprehPnsivP that other &unrnntees or the Covennnt woulcl not he ok;N·ved, lw ::niil. \.jhll(! lw wH;. sati;.tï~d \vith many of tJw polit ic.al and 3odo-economic arranr,f.•ments pr.esc:t~ibiHl .in thf! Cov(;nunt, t.lw i\clmini~;t,;~rinr; Authoe i t.y' f; fni lure to rei:Of;ni Zf.! full 1 nteennl ~;eJ.f-govf-~rmTtE!flt hy his people had di.lut<.·~l th(~ir drcnm:; foe on en 1\EtJJI\IUN T. !·IANGl.ONl\, Pre:;ident of the St!IHttc• of thP Sixi:.h Hort.hr~en Hnr i an a8 Commom·HHtl t. h Ler, i ~; lo tu rf'., ~;ai d t hat. on 7 Novfnnz1er .Pl H7 r.lF! people c·f t.t(d"thc!rn i't:le i ana~; Lad O'H~nvrw lmi ngl_v rcw ffi rmt:'d the i e c:.:!d 1"1" for i nt E>rna l ::uverRignt.y. Tlwy hnd clenr.ly exprE!!;~;e(: tiHdr Hish for f:E'lf-govto!t't::1:~nt .in s.ll loc:r.l an·! iPternnl mnt.L!r!;. Unch-r th(! eormnonwE!,"tlth t~eL:tticn~:hip -.ï.ith t:w ~nited 5tntcR, th~ ho~Ps for true locnl self-rov~rnm~n~ hnrt not been entirely rult'ïi.h;\l. ~~:ft<'!l' on Initial ner·i.o ( mc>t: C' ) T~usteeshlp Councjl - 5 - Pross Ralea~c TR/2354 1649th MPetin~ (P~) 11 ;.~üy 1.98~} cont~ol internai affnirs under the Covenant AgrPement. Kany beli0ved that the promises of self-covernm8nt had never been fully rGolizcd. The people of the Nortrwen Hari anas, by acc.ept .ing tlw Commom·Jertl th Covennnt Asreement with the Adminlste~ing Authority, had glven the United States c.ont.rol over defE~nee and fondgn aff airs and mrf!n nllol-wd l t to use 80ffiH cd~ its landH for national see.urity purposes, he sa.id. They had d(me ~w in order to ma intain ;~ontrol O'.H~r the ir internai aff air~;. However, the United States Government daimed that the tE>.rr1 torial c.lanse of the United States Constitution &overned the internai affairs of the Northern Morinnas. It refused to necotinte wlth the Northern Marianns on sorne key issues affecting the pollticol relotionship. HE:~ :;nid ttw United Sto.t.es refused to r;rant United States prwsports to sorne NorthE>rn Horianos citizens. It further refused to fund the operations of the GommiBsion of Federal Ll'Jv!S and :faihHl to aekno1rJ1ed~e Noetharn Harlanas sovereign clalm to sen-bed resources. Sorne federal officiais insisted on labellin& the Northern Mnrianas as a "territory" fo~ purposes of opplying federal stotutes to lts internol offoirs. The United States Nlnth Circuit Court had rulP He helieved thnt, with the help of the Trusteeship Council, an aceormnndat ion c:ould be reactwd \..rith the United State:; to honour. the Commonwealth Co11enant. He appealN! to ttl(! Cou ne il to lend .i t.s "t>leif~ht and prestlte to the Northern Marianas' long-otanc!int concerns for internol t;oveudgnty. PEDRO R. DELEON GUERRERO, Speaker of the Hou se of Repr.esr!ntati VE>s (IÎ the Sixth ~Joethern Hario.nas Commonwealth Legislature, said eertnin dHvelopmenU; bad eau:.:ed th(~ people of the liJorthern Hariana Island:; to ~;u;;p~~ct Hheth(~r the Administering Attthority intended to comply with its obligation to encoura&e self-&overnment. As a result, the Legislature believed that the Trusteeship Agreement could not be terminated until tlw Councll \'1185 sa.t isf led t.hat the Admlnistering Authority would not interfere in mntt.ers of local concern. For example, the Administerln~ Authority had fniled to comply with the Covennnt by not extending United Stntes citizenship to quallfied residents of the Islands, he went on. In addition, it hnd failed to regulo.rly consult on nll motters affecting the relntionship between the people of the Northern Hnrinnn Islands nnd the Administerin& Authority, n5 required by the Covennnt. F'utther, contrary to the Covennnt, ttw \~.xec:utiv(! brnnch of tho Administering Authority took the position that the territorial clause of the llnited States Constitution governPd the manner in which it opplied lts laws to the peopl~ of the Islands, he sald. Neither the land, the ocean, the sea-bed re8ottrees. nor the inhabitants of the I9lands hod ever been a ter~itory or po~>!>('~;siot:J of Ut(~ Unitf-~(1 Stat.E•s. The Adminintf:'rirtfi Authority's continued assertion thnt the territorial clattse 60verned the politiral relntionship botween it and the Northern Mnrionnu wns a seriotJS obstacle to the termination (mon>) Tru~;H~•:!sh.ip Gou'1cil .. 6 - .i ~l l~ ~! t h {· h.: f.· L j . • \.. ~ ~ ; l ~ .· ' ..... ~ of the Trust~eship dgr~0m0nt. The Truste~ship Counril s~ould state thnt the TeiJf;tpp;;r!.ip !Îf~rN'flîH!"ll. <:-ould not b>ê• türm!nnt.~~rl nntil ;_;,p :Jnit.f'cl ~~rn.r>:•:; ':ïrL; in complinnce with the Cov0nont. The Administerin& Authority's fuilure to finnnce the wnrk of the Commission on fQdernl Laws, as c]early req,Iired by the Covennnt, was nnother fJ.xrtmplP of lad:. of c:omplinnt(~, tw vJent on. In or(k:e to fnlly imph'\nent. self-&owernment, the Northern Mnrinnos people must be informed ns to th8 apr,llcability ot.' Federal lavJ~L Tt:t~ Commi!;sion's Hork. \'1/Q~.; PSSPntird becnnse of the many attcmpts to make federal laws npplicnhle to local issttes. Another point of dispute 1r1as th(lt tbe Administering Aut!tority refused to nt!crtŒ-vJt:•dr;e the Northern Hnrlnnas p~oples' ~lalmG to lts seo-hed ~esources. 8uch problem~; Ht-r(~ !\O seriou~: thal [L NorlhPen f1nriarw I~;Jnnd initi.ülive passed in Novemb~r of lnst yenr provided thnt, shottld mnttors of r.e]f-~overnment or finaneial il~[;.istan('(.> not be resol1!(~d a~; of .ruJ.v 19Wl, the people of th~ Islands would have the ri&ht to reject or rPne&otlote the CovPnant. In addition, h·f~Ï~:lation had been n~C(!ntly introdut:Ni in thr> Northern Hnrinnns House of Hepr0sentatives to t.~rminnt0 the Covenont. The Cou ne i 1 ~; twuld not pr.emn tu r'l'.:' ly termina U! tttf' Tru s tY~~ ~; h i p, as Un i tN! f!:t ti on5 ovP.r~deht t-lit!i neeclt'!d. PEDRO U. l\TALIG, Chairmnn of the Nor-tttürn Mnrianas Task. Forc.lé' (J~! t\t(• Terminntion of the Trusteeship, snict th~ Arlminist~~ing Authority hnd stated thot it intcnded to govern the No~thPrn Mnrinna~ theou&h t.h~ territorial el nu!; e. Th at j n off t:!C t HOU l d ons t t tw (~o vc>r· nm(•n t or ttw Nort.lwr.n Hat~ inn a [::land:; nnd r.(•plac:e it ~tJiU1 the~ liovE~rnmf'nt of tlw Admini:;t.<;>rlnr, ,\uthodly. The Nortlwl:"n l·htl:"ianas 1tws no lon&(~[" a CorntTlOnt.Jüalt.h, ba1t rather n merE' eolony whith wns run from top to bottorn by the i\dministE~rinr., 1\uthor.il.y. n.v orwcting thP t~rr.itorial clnu~c th~ i\dminlsterin& Authority was strlppint the Norlhern Hari ana J slnnd!; c1r .self -govürnment.. The people of the Northel:"n Mar.innns opposed formal t.erminotion ()f the Tcnsi.ee:;hip Agr.f!t•ment without n clenr undr!estandinr, and stoU.!mE~llt. frnm the Admini !>teri llf, Author.it.y th at the tf• rd todal c l.au!;e could not rf-'[llnu• section 103 1,f th8 Covcnant ~unl:"anteein& self-&nvernment, h~ sairl. Article 76 of the ChnrtP.r ami nt·t iclt'.~ li of lhe Tru:;h>P~;hlp Ar,re(:ment committr!f[ the tcusteeship Collncl1 to assur0 thnt trusteeship would not he ter.minntPd until self-r,ovflrnmNJt \..Yns eealized. Horeover, thr:!re could be no formai tet·lïlination of the Tru::tee~:hip A1;reement \'llithout the npproval of the SE>curity Cound1. The Administering Authority could not unilnt~rnlly terminate ll. Concludin&, he snid the peop]e of th0 Northern Mnrianns hnd n0~ot inted to presPrve th~ right of internnl sclf-government without intpcferenc(• by thP AdministPrinE Authority. Section 103 of the Covennnt servPd as the Commonw~nlth's only prot.ectinn from hein& mold0d into n ro]ooy of th0 A MJTOHIO H. GM-11\GHO. a member of the l'Jort hern r:n d r~P{W Ho us~::' or Reprer;ent The United States Cong~ess dld not reco&nize the authority of the C()vE•nant nnd h:iHI ttttf~mptf~d t.o nnilaternlly arm~nd it, he \40nt on. The fa.r:.t. thn1. it hnd rroposed bills to nmend the Covenant wns evidence of an ottempt to und(~rmin.:• un n:--:;rt>em•?nt bet~ove(sn tt..,r() ~wvE,r(•ign (I(!Oples nnd .sut;r.;ost.ed thnt thE! 1\r.lmirdsü:rinr~ Anthority ennsidE,eed Utt-! GOV('IHtnt to bf~ just anotlïer fedt~ral lav~ that it. eonld uni1at-::•rü11y nm~'!nd nt 1.-Jlll. The ogre0ment for finoncial as~istnnre to the N~rthern Marianas from the Administerlng Authority, os fO!Jnd in the Covenant, had been supported by the lnnr,nato:! thnt rho Admird.stE!r.ir!f~ Author.it.y r;avü it~; "full fitlt.h and credit" in support of [>rorrd.::o::~cl paymç,•nU;, he fW id. Hcnti€~ver-, tlw Urd tr.~d States Department of the Intr.ol~ior had a l\:; many a:; a thout:and inhabitants of the fllorttwrn Har.iarws vwre eurrently \vithout pnsr;porU;, and corWE!quenUy v7ithout nationality, due to nn intE~rpr.etation hy the United StatE~s nepartment of Immigration t.hat PN"!lorw with forei&n-born parents did not qualify for possports. Thus, the Administering Authority violated the Charter which stoted that every person had thr! rif~ht to na ti onnli t~T. As o ~~sult of numerous nnd contJn1aJng violations of the Covenant, ns well as the ~xpressed dissatlsfaction of his constiltlents, he snid he hnd introdtJced lPgislution for n rPf~rRndum to terminatR thù Covenant, to be held in NovembPe. tint i.J the Admini~;tt•dng Authority compli Vtd.ENTHJ BElŒZOVSKY U~ovi~:-t Union) ~:air! th•.: At!minister.inf; i\uthority was not on.ly not fttlJï:l Jin~ l t"f~-(~i)1T;~-,:;·ü·ons t.o t.he rHc rotw:; inn p~'>ople, but. t-las not fulfillin~ ~vPn those provisions whieh it had ogrePd to and had dRfended at prcviou~; ~:8~;~;inn:; of trw Couneil t.vith r(·~t~nrd to tlw Covennnt. It ,-!ppeared to bf; mi~:lendinf~ Uw peopü~ of JI-HcronE>~drt. 'Ihat wns very seri ·:litS. Tht? !:ituntion, p PATlUCK Pt'\SC1\l. {f'rr~!.!.!:i:') :;a id hü t·Uts p1 Nt:;Nl thot .:d. h:ast. one non-~ovprnmentnl orgnnizntion outside th~ Trust Territory had bpen able to frPc>ly vi::it Pnlnu, tft.utfc~; to the t\drninlstedng J'uUJ<•r.ity. (mon~) Trusteeship Council - ô - Press Rel4a~e TR/2354 lt)t,')tll Hf.!E>t i11b (PH) 11 Hay 19P.3 Kr. DEREZOVSKY {~oviet lJnion) snid the petltioners from the Northern f·fariana Islands hnd lndicatecl that the A Hr. TENORIO f;aid a nurnber of consaltatiCin~; had takt?•rt place in the past, IWWf!Vt!r, tht>y had been postp•med last yPnr du(• to the~ res.i~natlon of the ~~[IP<:Ïal ReprPSNitative of the .1\dmini:;t.r•rin~ Authodty. The Adminlstedne; Authority had been osked to appoint another Speciol Representative, 1;o that the mom(>ntum of the hilatE!ral tnlks could be maintainNl. Unfor.tunntely, aft.er a r.erif's of offidal correspondt=>nce, ttl(' United St.atH~; hact fl(,ver peovided a definitive response. No le~it.imate excuse had been &ivPn to explnin the delay ln the appointment nf a new Special ReprPHPntat.ive. J. STEPHEN SMITll (Unit(!d Kinf•dom) asked whether t!H~ rear.:on to brinf; the ------~ matttr of thfJ delay in the appointrnent of the Special l\PprPsPntntiv(~ to thf~ Trasteeship Council was primnrily hecn••s~ the petitionors hnd been anable to enter into di eect dialogue 1t1i th ttw Hni tNI Stnte~; Govr~rnment.. Mr. TENORIO snid the renson ior bringine; the matter befor.P the Council, aJthoue;h he eeallzed that it di Mr. ~iHITII rn Hnriann~;, nne pl'titioner ho.d spoken of it a:; "an aceidf•nt of Uw Admini~;tPrin~ Authority':; buro:!auerftry". I!C' n:;kyd for clnl"'ifil:ation. Mr. ATALIG sniJ that he hel iov~d thnt th0 ide~ls of se]f-Rov~rnment for the Nort.lwrn i'filrinn