Numerous ethnicities have engaged in these struggles; for example, in the 1998 Kosovo rebellion, nine different ethnic groups were engaged in the conflict.
Because of the enormity and diverseness of these situations, when it comes to self-determination, nothing is etched in stone. There is no recognized definition of “peoples” in international law, and there are no set rules for implementing self-determination. Even determining who is to be included in the self-determination process remains a matter of debate. In self-determination matters, there are only theories, and we’ll contrast two of them.
One theory of self-determination is proposed by Vita Gudeleviciute. A Lithuanian law professor, she espouses these basic principles: (1) The principal role of the U.N. is to foster peace and security for all peoples. (2) Government should reflect the will of the governed. (3) Human rights and fundamental freedoms should be observed. And (4), territorial integrity should be respected.
About non-self-governing territories, she writes: (1) Under present international law, “ ‘a people’ means … the entire population of a non-self-governing territory.” The term “non-self-governing territory” would include Guam. (2) To limit ethnic rancor and hostility, “self-determination prevails only under the condition that the definition of ‘a people’ means the entire population of a non-self-governing territory.” To achieve a peaceful outcome, all citizens of the non-self-governing territory would be eligible to vote in their plebiscite. (3) [Resolution 1514 and Resolution 2625] “preclude ethnic groups within non-self-governing territories from being considered as peoples.” An ethnic group acting unilaterally would not be eligible to vote in a plebiscite. To head off racial turmoil and hostilities, all voters in the non-self-governing territory would be eligible to participate in their plebiscite.
The theory supported by Chamorro activists reveals a different take on self-determination. Their view is often supported by the following arguments: (1) “A people” should be defined as residents of Guam in 1946 and their descendants. (Alternate dates of 1898 and 1950 have also been suggested.) (2) Only those who fit the preceding time-based qualification and their descendants are the colonized people of Guam. All others are not colonized and are not “a people” eligible to participate in the Guam plebiscite. (3) The federal government has failed to discourage the systematic influx of outside immigrants to Guam, thus distorting the possible outcome of the Guam plebiscite. Because of the federal government’s failure to stop immigration to Guam, those immigrants and their descendants are not “a people” and are not eligible to participate in the Guam plebiscite.
The above assertion regarding who constitutes “a people” has some troubling aspects. Resolution 1514 mandates that the self-determination process should be completed “without any distinction as to race, creed, and color.” One can argue that this “time-based designation” avoids those prohibitions. However, it is unlikely that the Courts would be that gullible. The same type of ploy was used by a native Hawaiian group. In Rice v. Cayetano, the court held that a time-based designation was an impermissible and unconstitutional proxy for race.
The statement that only the Chamorros are the colonized people of Guam is balderdash. Federal laws are not applied more harshly to Chamorros than to other citizens. Government benefits, federal and local, have not been denied to Chamorros. If adverse effects of colonialism exist on Guam, all residents are affected by them equally.
The charge that the federal government has failed in its duty to restrict immigration to Guam doesn’t have much merit. The U.N. supports freedom of movement within one’s country. When the Department of Defense restricted immigration to Guam after WWII — the Navy sealed up Guam until 1962 — the people of Guam rightly and vociferously complained. In the ’70s and ’80s, the government of Guam recruited off-island doctors, nurses and teachers. Are we now going to treat these individuals as persona non grata? In addition, the argument presented ignores all the prohibitions against discrimination that appear again and again in U.N. literature.
The matter of self-determination may be complex, but it is not rocket science. The U.N. has always championed human rights, and U.N. pronouncements in the charter and elsewhere seem to support that notion. Whenever the charter mentions “self-determination,” it also mentions “equal rights” and “the observance of human rights for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, and religion.” Notice the reference to “human rights.” And human rights, it should be noted, include voting.
Indeed, one of the human rights listed in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that of “universal and equal suffrage” (Article 21 (3). Our Chamorro brethren do have the human right of “universal and equal suffrage.” But then, so do the rest of us.
And finally, there’s U.N. Resolution 1541, the resolution cited by the Guam Commission on Decolonization as the basis for a plebiscite limited to three options. Resolution 1541 requires that these three political status options be selected through “universal adult suffrage.” That’s “universal adult suffrage,” not “Chamorro adult suffrage.”
We Guam folks have been at this self-determination business for almost three decades. We have four choices before us. We can do nothing. We can proceed with the Chamorro-only plebiscite and Congress will do nothing. We can have the District Court settle the unresolved issues. Or we can work together, hold a plebiscite that involves all the stakeholders, and acquire that political status which we, as a people, most desire.
PHILIP DAUTERMAN
Barrigada, Guam
