Wednesday, May 29th 2013 - 20:55 UTC

Puerto Rican Lawyer speaks at the UN Decolonisation Committee seminar

At a UN Decolonisation Committee seminar, Wilma Reveron, a Puerto Rican lawyer said that the U.S. has made it clear that they do not intend to allow a true exercise of self-determination in Puerto Rico.

Reveron “America does not evince the slightest intention of encouraging or permitting a true exercise of self-determination”

Reveron, who favours independence and is an expert on the political case of Puerto Rico at the UN, said the President Barack Obama's response to a local plebiscite held on November 6 confirms that this “was another exercise in futility for the people of Puerto Rico ”.

“America does not evince the slightest intention of encouraging or permitting a true exercise of self-determination in Puerto Rico, as proven by 114 years of colonialism,” she said.

Reveron was invited to participate as an expert in the Regional Caribbean Seminar Committee on Decolonisation of the UN, which started yesterday and ends tomorrow in Quito, Ecuador.

Although 54% of Puerto Rico voters rejected the extension of the current territorial status, Obama has proposed that the government of Puerto Rico should order another plebiscite – to which the federal government allocated $ 2.5 million- in which the Department of Justice of the United States would be limited to examining the constitutionality of the status alternatives agreed upon.

In her presentation Reveron said Obama's strategy does not recognise the colonial nature of the political relationship of the Island, or the supervision of the international community and does not apply the “procedural and substantive principles of international law”.

Furthermore she highlighted the fact that the plebiscite would not be binding to the U.S. government and “does not provide an opportunity for the participation of the Puerto Rican community residing outside Puerto Rico who constitute the majority of Puerto Ricans today.”

”To participate in the plebiscite that President Obama now proposed would be playing by United States rules, accepting a process that does not comply with international law and which urges the people of Puerto Rico to a take decision without the precautionary measures provided by international law and education, without proper training and adequate supervision. “
 

29 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Comments should refer to article. Thank you.

1 Baxter (#) May 29th, 2013 - 09:24 pm Report abuse
They should ask Mr. Timermam for advice on how to handle this .
2 Ayayay (#) May 29th, 2013 - 10:08 pm Report abuse
Ok goodbye! Join Cuba and Haiti. Right now Puerto Rico has a higher life expectancy than Cuba and many times the income and freedom.
3 Anbar (#) May 29th, 2013 - 10:15 pm Report abuse
Obama sitting on the fence doing nothing?

gasp, shock, horror.

The only person in history to get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing.
4 Anglotino (#) May 30th, 2013 - 12:13 am Report abuse
Simple question should be asked.

“Should Puerto Rico declare independence from the United States?”

No other questions and no other options. Extremely simple.

If the answer is no, then six months later you have another referendum.

“Should Puerto Rico become a state within the United States of America?”

If the answer is no, then the status quo wins out.
5 Captain Poppy (#) May 30th, 2013 - 01:43 am Report abuse
I wish they would.....they are a leech island. Ask Americans to vote and they would get rid of PR like a virus.

Anglotino, the can ask the statehood question, but it is not their right to be allowed in the union. Only the latins, mostly PR's and illegal Mexicans would want PR as a state. It costs us enough in tax money as it is. GOODBYE PR!
6 Anglotino (#) May 30th, 2013 - 02:31 am Report abuse
You have an interesting take on things Captain Poppy, wrong, but interesting nonetheless.
7 Hepatia (#) May 30th, 2013 - 04:36 am Report abuse
The US should not be running British style plebiscites. Any election should be in the form of a ballot measure.
8 Ayayay (#) May 30th, 2013 - 06:05 am Report abuse
@6 No, h's right Anbar. Both the liberals and conservatives of us would like to let it go. Takes more than receives,, and we can use that money for higher education of U.S. citizens, health care, deficit reduction, lower taxes, solar, ev. End to colonization!
9 Monkeymagic (#) May 30th, 2013 - 06:09 am Report abuse
Does she think the decolonisation commitee has the slightest interest in self-determination?

They WANT the territories to be annexed to larger mainland countries against their will.

Or is that just the Falklands?

54% what kind of a result is that, the C24 like to ignore 99.7% results.
10 Teaboy2 (#) May 30th, 2013 - 08:09 am Report abuse
@9 “Does she think the decolonisation commitee has the slightest interest in self-determination?”

That's a good point, because if the decolonization committee agrees with her then they will be setting a precedent, which means they would then have to allow self determination in the Falklands islands too. Given the Islanders have made their choice clear, they should then remove the Falklands of the Decolonization lists on non self governing territories.
11 Captain Poppy (#) May 30th, 2013 - 09:18 am Report abuse
Anglontino Your arrogance in most every post you make gives one pause at times. Like your statement that Australia invented the secret ballot in 183o (check Frances 1796 written constitution) . I kind of chuckled on that one. Now I am wrong in my opinion I do not want and most of US citizens do not want PR as a state. Stick you your wonderful land of Oz. You mate.....are wrong. Google it all you want, it will not change reality. You come across as toby on this one. Either way, no entity has a right to US statehood because their are a territory, as many other territories.
12 Biguggy (#) May 30th, 2013 - 09:41 am Report abuse
@9 & 10
The C24 is actually a sub committee of the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly so it is, in reality a sub-sub-committee of the General Assembly, any 'finding', 'resolutions' etc. that it comes up with have to be submitted to the Fourth Committee for consideration prior to being forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration. The General Assembly can then, if they so wish, amend it, issue a 'Resolution' etc., Please note however that General Assembly Resolutions are not binding, only Security Council Resolutions are, and we all know how much notice Argentina takes of those, ignores them (502).
Further the C24 committee seem to be incapable of accepting, that despite information to the contrary, full independence, is not the 'only solution'.
13 Anglotino (#) May 30th, 2013 - 10:11 am Report abuse
Captain Poppy

I'm glad I come across as arrogant. It is not really difficult when you are one of the standards against which I must measure myself on here. I fully understand how new states can be admitted to the union. However if public opinion is so against the idea then perhaps the US government has a duty to verbalise that opinion to the people of Puerto Rico.

As a colony of the US, the US government has a duty of care to either prepare the island for independence or integration. For some reason the status quo is preferable to everyone except latins from Puerto Rico and illegal Mexican immigrants (though I am still trying to get my head around why they would care).

I said you were wrong, because it is their right to be allowed into the union, however you don't think they WOULD be admitted. That is a difference and that is why you are wrong. Any entity has the right to petition to be admitted to statehood, but that does not mean they will be admitted.

But if you wish to call me names, then that is more a reflection on you than me.

As for fiscal transfers, I am glad that I live in a more egalitarian country than yours. The US government is well within its right to say to the Puerto Rican government that it will be given independence and full sovereignty on a certain date.

It doesn't.

This is pretty much how Australia got rid of Papua New Guinea where there was a desire for eventual independence but no movement for it to happen as early as 1975.

As for the secret ballot, time to do a little more research popsy. While France had a “secret ballot”, it is not too secret when you can trace the vote back to a person because of the paper used or the handwriting. That is what the French ballot was capable of doing. What Australia invented the preprinted ballot available only at the polling place and secret because there is no way through paper type or hand writing to trace it back to an individual.

Your veering off topic is definitely a Nostril's manoeuvre.
14 manchesterlad (#) May 30th, 2013 - 10:23 am Report abuse
If we all support the principle of self determination then we have to support PR on this one.......not sure how they could survive though if the US pulled out all of it's resources

Also 54% sounds a bit low, it's acceptable in elections but for constitutional changes usually a minimum of 60% is required. I wonder if there were any international observers during this 'plebiscite' ???
15 Monkeymagic (#) May 30th, 2013 - 12:03 pm Report abuse
@14

The principle of self determination is universal. However, you cannot force a nation state to accept a territory either.

what is certain is that what the people of PR want should be clearly defined, and then the onus would be on the US to try to make that happen or offer an acceptable alternative.
16 yankeeboy (#) May 30th, 2013 - 12:17 pm Report abuse
Puerto Rico is disgusting, I just came back from my first visit there and I will never go back.
I would be very happy to let them go. Although they should think about how much they will give us for defense and how to pay back the U$14B yr we've been transferring them for the last umpteen years.
They'll never be a USA state, they can't afford to run their own country without our $ so they are pretty well stuck with the status quo until the USA forces them out.
We don't need them and nobody wants them.
It seems pretty simple to me.
17 Captain Poppy (#) May 30th, 2013 - 01:03 pm Report abuse
It's a good thing you pat yourself on the back anglotino. The more I read your posts the more you display your common denominator with tobi.

If the status quo is not acceptable to the PR's and not wanted by the US citizens, perhaps they should have have more than 30% vote for independence.

(though I am still trying to get my head around why they would care).

Latino's , or hispanics as they are called in the USA seem to be a block. But that is something you would not know from virtual knowledge. It's good that you measure yourself here and not in the physical world.....you really are special. I wsa going to research the constitutional right of a territory, but with your encyclopedic mind and intelligence........you will ultimately divulge it, people like you can not hold it back.......they need a pulpit.
18 FarmBoy (#) May 30th, 2013 - 01:11 pm Report abuse
The Puerto Ricans can have any vote they want on any subject they want. They established the subject and criteria for the one mentioned in this article. It is because the US didn't think the questions were presented in a clear way that we want a revote and are providing money to help with education.

I am fairly certain most people in the US do not want Puerto Rico as a state therefore it will not happen. The status quo is acceptable by many but if they choose independence that would be great.
19 Hepatia (#) May 30th, 2013 - 03:19 pm Report abuse
en.mercopress.com/2013/05/29/puerto-rican-lawyer-speaks-at-the-un-decolonisation-committee-seminar#comment251200: You are correct but the Australian Ballot, which is something more than a secret ballot, was invented in Australia and was, subsequently, adopted by many other countries including the US. But, unfortunately it has still not been adopted by some Central and South American countries.
20 briton (#) May 30th, 2013 - 06:32 pm Report abuse
Why argue??????????

the most common sense approach is to ask CFK if she would take over
Puerto Rico as part of Argentina's growing Empire lolol.
21 GFace (#) May 30th, 2013 - 07:01 pm Report abuse
If you accept 54% as a majority (rather than a 3/5 or 2/3 supermajority), then there are two ways to go which are totally different directions. Statehood (requiring Congress - read: the rest of the Union's -- support) or Independence. Good luck on both! And on that line, would Reveron be willing to be honest to the C24 and say that only a sliver of those who reject the status quo stand with her on independence with most of the people she claims to represent wanting to go in the opposite direction supporting Statehood (the majority) or Free Association a la Micronesia.

But overall, if the rest of us wanted as a nation for PR to be a state, our flag would have 51 stars already. BOTH parties pay lip-service to theoretically admitting PR into the union as a state “by the book” but the idea of PR and DC statehood, neither of which are new, are fantasies by partisan Democrats who lay claim to the Latino block (fat good that gave them on some social referenda in recent years!). DC becoming a state is as ludicrous as Orange County getting statehood -- it'll go back to Maryland just as the south bank went back to Virginia. Going independent or even the FA route requires ditching a lot of the bennies they have under US Territory status a la Quebec when they do their independence game.
22 Captain Poppy (#) May 30th, 2013 - 07:22 pm Report abuse
DC statehood is not a consideration, it's a federal area and was created for the purposes of running the federal government. It was never meant to be a residence for citizens.
And yes, PR gets a hell of a lot more percs as a territory than they would as a state, so it makes sense that less than 1/3 do not want an independent status. PR's want statehood, Americans do not, politics troll the carrot . Become a notion and leave the US possession.
23 Brit Bob (#) May 30th, 2013 - 07:50 pm Report abuse
www.penguin-news-com/index.php/news/politics/item/557-falklands-government-representative-says-c24-fails-to-move-with-times
24 Biguggy (#) May 30th, 2013 - 09:54 pm Report abuse
As a purely personal observation, the members of the C24 sub-sub-committee do not seem interested in visiting, either as a group or individually, most of the territories 'on the list'.
To me, this smacks of indifference at best, and something considerably worse at the the other end of the scale.
25 Captain Poppy (#) May 30th, 2013 - 10:45 pm Report abuse
Good observation............it should be a prerequisite after they cull the list and reorganize it for reality.
26 GeoffWard2 (#) May 31st, 2013 - 02:05 pm Report abuse
“America (she means the USA) does not evince the slightest intention of encouraging or permitting a true exercise of self-determination in Puerto Rico, as proven by 114 years of colonialism.”

My!
This woman must be aware that EVERY nation in North America and South America has at leat one or two centuries of 'colonialism' in the bag, and that things only get redefined when the people in charge of ALL these countries see advantage in pretending that they are 'not-colonials' and are the 'new-indiginants'.

Who these 'new-indiginant' peoples wish to associate themselves with is down to the power-plays of their leaderships and the relative strengths of them and their regional neighbours.
There seems to be a tacit recognition that nations' integrity and boundaries are 'sacrosanct', and that the play with the status of nations should be undertaken within the remits of the UN. Only rarely these days do we see outright invasions designed to take over whole countries. It is too much hassle and might trigger a 'world war'. If there is a perceived disparity in size and power it might happen ... like Tibet, like 1982 Falklands. Sometimes the aggressor prevails, like in Tibet; sometimes the aggressor is sent packing, like TFI. But there is a VERY sound case for tiny nations to take the title Protectorate, and the UN C24 must be frequently reminded that this sound case is at least as strong as the politics of world belief-systems. And, in South America, not everybody want to be - or needs to be - Bolivarian, or Leftist, or 'communist', or Marxist.

The support of a nation's need to plough its own furrow is paramount,
and it is only when a nation self-immolates, like Syria,
or spills its problems across national borders, like Hezbulloh or the Afghan/Pakistani 'border' region,
that the UN is there to try to arbitrate, control, manage, or whatever else might treat the symptoms.
27 Conqueror (#) May 31st, 2013 - 02:10 pm Report abuse
@4 What a strange “idea”. Could Puerto Rico survive without the United States? In 2012, 61% of Puerto Ricans voted to become a US state. Isn't that enough? This woman is “arguing” on behalf of the 39%. Not exactly democratic is it? It's much like the Falkland Islands and argieland or Gibraltar and Spain. And Reveron looks “latino” to me. Last ditch efforts by latinos to give themselves some credibility in the history of the world. When they have none. Latinos, wherever they are, are best considered to be amongst the last vestiges of imperialist barbarians. Just look at the evidence. The people of Gibraltar have said, more than once, what they want. And it isn't Spain. The people of Puerto Rico have said what they want. US statehood. The people of the Falkland Islands have said what they want. And it isn't argieland. Why can't latinos just accept that they are losers? Everyone knows they are losers. If every card in the deck was a joker they still couldn't win a game of Snap. If pushed, they are just intelligent enough to be draught animals or slaves.
28 Hepatia (#) May 31st, 2013 - 03:23 pm Report abuse
en.mercopress.com/2013/05/29/puerto-rican-lawyer-speaks-at-the-un-decolonisation-committee-seminar#comment251446: Americans are in fact the indiginants. This was one of the issues settled by the war of 1812.
29 Captain Poppy (#) May 31st, 2013 - 03:26 pm Report abuse
Considering that the majority of PR's want to be a state and if they can't want to stay as it is speaks a lot of PR's confidence to manage on their own. Only 30% voted for independence, perhaps they are bolivarian minded an why the majority do not wish to be like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolvia and very soon....Argentina.

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!

Advertisement

Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!

Advertisement