Fourth Committee, 3rd plenary meeting - General Assembly, 81st session

the third meeting of the special political and decolonization committee. The fourth committee is called to order. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, as announced Friday, we will now begin hearing from representatives and petitioners on the questions of American Samoa, the British Virgin Islands, the Falkland Islands, French Polynesia, Gibraltar, Guam, New Caledonia, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, and Western Sahara. These hearings are held under agenda item 56, entitled "Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples". I remind all speakers for the need for decorum when making their interventions. They must not stray from the subject and territory under consideration. In that regard, I remind petitioners to observe the rules and decisions of the committee while attending its meetings. They must keep in mind that they are given the floor to furnish information to the committee through their statements only. Therefore, no flags or banners should be displayed in the conference room. Please note that the time limits of seven minutes for statements by the representatives of non-self-governing territories and three minutes for statements by petitioners and Member States for any follow-up question or comment on a speaker's statement To assist speakers in managing their time, the red light on their microphone will begin to blink one minute before the allotted time is up. Once that minute has passed, the microphone will be automatically cut off. I ask speakers to deliver their statements at a reasonable pace. so as to allow the provision of adequate interpretation. I also request speakers to submit their statements in advance and by indicating the name of the meeting when they do so to e-stenments@un.org to facilitate the work of the interpreters. Furthermore, please be advised that only accredited media representatives escorted by a representative of the Department of Global Communications will be authorized to film petitioner statements. In this regard, I recall that the Fourth Committee meetings are being broadcast live on the web. We will begin with the question of American Samoa. Based on the decisions taken at our second meeting, we shall now hear the petitioners who wish to make statements on the question of American Samoa. the petitioners scheduled to speak had not come have not come to pick up their passes they I'm just going to take a moment to verify that they are not in fact present in the room the first is Miss fatoumata Sissoko I invite her if present to take a seat at the petitioners table and then to take the floor.

La petitionaire n'est pas present.

The petitioner is not in the room. Next, I invite the second petitioner, Ms. Aminata Diawara, to take a seat at the petitioner's table. You have the floor if you are, in fact, present in the room. now move to the issue of the British Virgin Islands. The premier of the British Virgin Islands, his excellency, mister Natalio D Wheatley, wishes to make a statement. In accordance with the committee's standing procedure, I suggest that the committee invite the premier to make a statement. It is so decided. I now give the floor to the Premier of the British Virgin Islands, his excellency, mister Natalio D Wheatley. You have the floor. Premier.

Mister Chair, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I bring you warm greetings from the government and people of the British Virgin Islands. I would like to sincerely thank the fourth committee for granting me this opportunity to address you today. Excellencies, our quest for the total and unequivocal decolonization of the BVI continues and is at a critical stage. We are currently in the process of negotiating a new constitution with the United Kingdom. The official negotiations kicked off in August with the first round of talks. which was followed by a second round in September. The deliberations have been constructive thus far, and my meetings with the new UK Overseas Territories Minister, Uma Kumar, have been constructive. Another round of negotiations is anticipated in the weeks ahead, while technical and political discussions continue in the intervening period. Devolution of authority will be an important marker of progress. The objective is to agree a new constitution by the end of the year that meets the BVI's aspirations. The government's official negotiating position was adopted by the House of Assembly in April. It was unanimously approved and reflects the unified position of all political parties in the legislature. My government is seeking what has been described as a pre-independence constitution that provides for full internal self-government, a bicameral legislature, and a pathway to full sovereignty. Please permit me to set out for you the key constitutional provisions we have proposed. The Premier should chair cabinet instead of a UK-appointed governor. This is already the case in other British overseas territories, such as Gibraltar and Bermuda, and also in the Crown dependencies. A Senate should be created to establish a bicameral legislature. This is already the case in Bermuda. Responsibility for the public service should be devolved to the elected arm of government under the authority of a minister instead of a UK-appointed governor. This is currently the case in the Crown dependencies and practically in Bermuda and Gibraltar. Responsibility for internal security should be devolved to the elected arm of government under the authority of a minister instead of a UK-appointed governor. The current delegated areas of external affairs should also be devolved to the elected arm of government, which is already the case in practice. There should be a defined pathway to full sovereignty in which the people of the Virgin Islands exercise their right to self-determination. Excellencies, friends, these are the core constitutional proposals the BVI is negotiating. The UK has also introduced its own proposals, which are points for further discussion in the negotiations. As a matter of principle, we also believe the unilateral authority of the United Kingdom to suspend or remove the democratic rights of the people of the BVI should be eliminated altogether, even if just on moral grounds. Progressing the territory along the path of self-determination is an international obligation of the UK under Article 73 of the UN Charter. The constitutional negotiations position the United Kingdom to meet this obligation in the BVI's case. The C24 visiting mission report to the territory stated that we are ready for the next step. This is supported by the fact that the BVI has been self-funded since 1978 and receives no financial assistance from the United Kingdom. It is the local leadership of the BVI that has built up our islands brick by brick over seven decades. We also recently completed the most comprehensive governance reform in the history of the territory. As we continue to position the society for self-determination, we are taking steps on the grounds to help prepare the public to meaningfully engage. This includes setting up a decolonization commission that will help educate the local population on the UN-sanctioned options for decolonization with respect to integration, free association, and independence. The Decolonisation Commission will help to ensure the public is aware of the obligations and responsibilities of independence so that this option is approached in a responsible manner. My government has no doubt that as a country we would thrive. The BVI is grateful to this Committee and the C24 for your steadfast support. We greatly appreciate the understanding and solidarity of nations across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific, and Latin America. I want to extend very special thanks to our Caribbean family, CARICOM, the OCS, the ACS, and the Caribbean territories for standing with us throughout this journey. Mr. Chair, Excellencies, The BVI looks forward to updating this Committee and the C24 on the outcome of constitutional negotiations between the BVI and the UK in due course. We will continue to be a constructive partner as we aspire to achieve a full measure of self-government. Mr. Chair, I thank you.

I thank the Prime Minister of the British Virgin Islands. Do any members wish to take the floor to put questions to the Premier or make comments on the statement he made? That does not seem to be the case. Based on the decisions taken at our second meeting, we shall now hear the petitioners wishing to make statements on the question of the British Virgin Islands. I invite Mr. Eliezer Benito Wheatley to take a seat at the petitioners table and to take the floor.

And our people's right to govern themselves, you should support the BVI's aspirations for full internal self-government as the next step in their political evolution. If you believe in the principle of self-determination, you should support the BVI's aspiration for a full measure of self-government in the near future. And if you believe colonialism should be a thing of the past, you should support the full decolonization of the BVI as required under Article 73 of the UN Charter. The BVI was left behind in the independence era of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Since then, there has been no clearly defined path to full sovereignty. After 1983, The remaining British colonies in the Caribbean were no longer offered associated statehood status. The UK eventually declared them British Overseas Territories, but their full decolonization was never realized. Let there be no doubt that the BVI remains under the yoke of colonialism, despite gains in self-government. This is why it is important to dispel the myth that being an overseas territory of the UK is a comfortable arrangement for the BVI. It is an uneasy relationship. The BVI has been financially self-sufficient since 1978 and receives no financial assistance from the UK. Local leadership is who developed and modernized the society. But yet responsibility for the public service, internal security, administration of the courts, external affairs, and chairing of cabinet falls under a British governor appointed in the UK. Invariably, there will be friction. The tension between freedom and control is very real. The ongoing constitutional negotiations between the UK and BVI should be squarely aimed at restoring a path to full sovereignty and addressing the friction in the current governance arrangements. This is best achieved by devolving the remaining areas of responsibility and authority from the UK to the democratically elected arm of the BVI government. In closing, Mr. Chair, I want to commend the CARICOM Reparations Commission for their advocacy for the total decolonization of the BVI in line with the revised CARICOM 10-point plan on reparations. Sir Hilary Beckles and Ambassador David Commission are to be commended for the leadership in the inclusion of decolonization on this agenda. It is now not just a matter of self-determination. It is also a matter of repertory justice. I thank you.

I thank the petitioner for his statement. we will now hear a petitioner on the question of the Falkland Islands, Malvinas. It seems the petitioner did not pick up his pass. I will nevertheless call on the petitioner to ensure they are not in the room. I invite Ms. Kanwal Aslam to take a seat at the petitioner's table and to take the floor. You have three minutes. The petitioner is not in the room. We now move to the question of French Polynesia. The President of French Polynesia, His Excellency Moataa Brotherson, wishes to make a statement. I suggest that the Committee invite the President to make that statement. It is so decided. I invite the President of French Polynesia, His Excellency Mr. Motea Brotherson, to take a seat at the committee's table. You have the floor, Excellency.

Allow me first to express our gratitude to Nicaragua for hosting this year's regional seminar on decolonization. One man is not in the room today, but he's watching this session from Tahiti. Oscar Temaru, the architect of our inscription in 2013. Without him, none of the 39 petitioners nor myself would be addressing this committee today. Sadly, our decolonization process has reached a deadlock. 13 years after our inscription on the UN list, France has yet to engage in a structured dialogue under the auspices of the UN. Since taking office in 2023, I have consistently called for such a dialogue. Today, the deadlock remains, but something has changed. On September 24th, our assembly adopted a resolution supported by its three main political groups, Tavinii Hui Ratira, Awhanuitia, and Tapura Hui Ratira. Independence and autonomous forces with different visions of our political future have found common ground. Six days later, my government formally renewed its call for France to engage in a decolonization dialogue under the scrutiny of the United Nations. These initiatives have not opened yet that dialogue. Only France's willingness to engage can do so. But they sent an unprecedented message. We may disagree on the destination, but we can and we must agree on the right of our people to choose that destination freely. This is political maturity. This is democracy and an opportunity France should not ignore. Mr. Chairman, we are not asking for yet another bilateral discussion confined within this French institutional framework, within a system where France ultimately defines the rules and the limits. Our future cannot remain solely a French domestic matter. We are asking for a true decolonization dialogue grounded in international law, involving France, the institutions and political forces of French Polynesia, with the United Nations associated with the process. The UN role is to guarantee that our right to self-determination is respected. We propose a simple program of work. First, a comprehensive program of information and education on the different political status options available. Second, a United Nations visiting missions to hear our people directly. And third, an agreed pathway towards a democratic act of self-determination, ultimately allowing the Maori people to express their choice freely through a referendum. No predetermined outcome, no unilateral imposition. We are not asking France to decide our future. We are asking France to stop preventing us from discussing how we will decide it. Our willingness to host a future United Nations regional seminar in Mahuini remains unchanged. Mr. Chairman, I'm an independence leader. My conviction is known. But the future of our country cannot be decided by one leader, one political party, or one government. It belongs to our people. And self-determination is not an abstract institutional debate. It's about our history. France conducted 193 nuclear tests in our country. Their consequences remain part of our environment, our families, and our collective memory. Truth, justice, and responsibility must be part of the relationship we seek to rebuild. Self-determination is also about our future. Our ocean and deep seabed contain resources attracting greedy sharks in white collar, looking for their next pump and dump scheme while pretending to save the planet. For us, these resources are not merely commodities waiting to be extracted. They are the natural heritage of the Maori people, and the ocean is our ancestor. The right to determine whether, how, and for whose benefit these resources are ever used must belong to our people. That, too, is self-determination. Mr. Chairman, I have consistently favored political dialogue over litigation. I would rather sit around a table than stand before a court. But dialogue cannot mean indefinite waiting. Our Pacific region knows the consequences of leaving political questions unresolved for too long. The recent history of Kanaky New Caledonia reminds us that dialogue must come before violence, not after it. This is neither a comparison nor a threat. It's a responsibility to preserve peace. And this brings me to France. This is the last session of this committee to be held during President Emmanuel Macron's two presidential terms. When he first took office, French Polynesia had already been prescribed for four years. When he leaves office, 14 years will have passed. 14 years during which France could have chosen dialogue. France proudly presents itself as the birth nation of human rights and its republic rests upon three powerful words: liberty, equality, fraternity. I believe in the universal values of these principles. But can liberty be complete when a people is denied a genuine process to determine its political future? Can equality exist when a permanent member of the Security Council refuses to engage with the very organization whose charter it has pledged to uphold? And what becomes of fraternity when a hand extended for dialogue remains unanswered? Will France end these two presidential terms as they began, in denial? Or will President Macron seize this final opportunity to open a new chapter in the relationship between France and the Maori people? Mr. Chairman, 13 years after our inscription, the time for procedural excuses has passed. Today, autonomists and independentists are extending the same hand. We are ready. A second man, Leon Tefo, member of the Polynesian pro-independence delegation, is missing today. He passed away here in New York two days ago. As we pursue the cause to which he was committed, I ask that we honour his memory. To his family and loved ones, I extend my deepest condolences. There is a verse in the gospel, 7, "Ask and it shall be given you. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be opened unto you." For 13 years, we have asked, we have sought, we have knocked. Now is the time for France to open the door. Let us open the decolonization dialogue. Let us agree on a program of work. Let the United Nations be associated with the process. And when the time comes, let the Maori people decide. Not Paris, not this committee, not my government, the Maori people. Peacefully, democratically, freely. That is self-determination, and that is how we preserve peace. Marurua, te reo whai rahi.

I thank the President of French Polynesia for that statement. Does any member wish to put questions to the President or to comment on his statement? I give the floor to the distinguished representative, France.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish first and foremost to greet the President of French Polynesia, His Excellency Moetei Brotherson, and the other elected officials from French Polynesia, senators, deputies, as well as all of the representatives of French Polynesia here today. First of all, we learned with sadness of the death of Mr. Leo Te Faau, this past weekend, and I wish to extend my full condolences to his family, his loved ones, and to the entirety of the French Polynesian delegation. Chair, French Polynesia is a overseas collectivity that has a great degree of political autonomy. This autonomy system guarantees, through the French Constitution, And all these guarantees were built in full respect of the aspirations of the French Polynesian people and of their rights. These are the same rights as those enjoyed by any and all French citizens. The autonomy system also allows the Polynesian people to elect their own government and their representatives in local legislative bodies, in addition to their representatives within national institutions. French Polynesia thus has a broad remit and has many competencies in almost all domains. More specifically, this means that Polynesian people have full autonomy to determine the public policies within the archipelago within the fields of the economy, education, health, tourism, work and culture. Only The key competencies such as defense, regalian competencies remain the matter remit of the French government. The head of the French state and government will conduct consultations with all Polynesian stakeholders, taking into account messages that have been conveyed and the demands expressed. I wish to recall France's position. We are in favour of a constant direct dialogue between state bodies and the Polynesian territory. This dialogue emerges through regular contacts at all levels. The state is fully committed to and engaged in these. Economic development and the integration of French Polynesia within its regional environment are French priorities. The State continues to provide economic support to French Polynesia to the tune of 30% of the GDP of the territory. That's 2 billion euros that are transferred annually to the archipelago. The State also supports the participation of French Polynesia in regional forums, such as the Pacific Island Forum. We also support the territory with major projects, such as the holding of the Pacific Games. In 2027, the state continues its engagement and its trust-based dialogue with all French Polynesian stakeholders to guarantee the archipelago's development.

The microphone has been cut.

Off.

I thank the distinguished representative of France. I see no other delegation asking for the floor. We now are going to hear the petitioners who want to make a statement on the issue of French Polynesia. Before giving the floor to the first petitioner, could I ask the petitioner to please press the button when you hear the name, not before. And once that happens, you will be given the floor. You will see that the microphone is in red. That means that the microphone is active and you can speak. I give the floor to Lena Tshetwane.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Commission, once again we are here in front of this honorable committee, but in a different format. And in this regard, together with our independentist colleagues, we are bringing forth a common resolution. As a senator of French Polynesia, reelected a week ago, we reaffirm our conviction for the autonomy. discussion on the future of the country needs to be conducted seriously and together with the Polynesians themselves. We would like to have a Polynesia which can decide by itself to have a greater share of responsibilities and to build its future within the French Republic. But autonomy as well as independence implies certain responsibilities. We have 5 million square kilometers in the Pacific, which is witnessing geopolitical tensions amongst major powers. The French Republic, with its army, police, and maritime monitoring and intelligence and intervention capacities, is there. In 2025, more than 360 million euros were spent by France for military and security issues in French Polynesia. We are protected by France. And the same reality exists in the area of education, which, however, remains-- the of Polynesians, we have, uh, more than $2 billion spent on the French Polynesia by France, more than $1 billion as an accompaniment to our own competencies. These realities are not the arguments for or against an institutional choice. This is just a statement of facts. And this is why we're in favor of an information mission by the United Nations in French Polynesia. We're asking the United Nations to come and listen, not to make a choice for us, to listen to all of the political sensibilities, to listen to those who are elected, the community, civil society, especially the Polynesians themselves. and thereafter it will be Polynesia themselves who will decide on their future. I thank you.

I thank you. I now give the floor to Maroni Piarbort.

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished representatives of the UN in your individual capacities. Since We have agreed to invite a UN mission to our islands. I address myself to members of the 24 committees, and I issue this warning. You are coming to Polynesia, and you expose yourself to a risk, namely that you will never want to leave. You will meet a family which is the size of a people, a great family which decided not to hate each other. We are insular in terms of geography, but universal in our aspirations. We are individuals, but we are linked by fraternity. We are very hospitable and respectful. That is part of our inheritance. This is what unites us all. We are being called upon to protect peace, and we are committed to that on the UN Charter. So let's protect the peace that we have. Let's honor our family by respect and not conquest, colonial Contempt does not have a place here. Hosting a mission does not mean that we consent to a process or a timetable. Our people will decide on their own. Our freedom also means a freedom to continue down our own path within the Republic. We have a very simple ambition here that our young people can build their lives at home, that each family can live with dignity, that we grow together, that we withstand the climate change, that our culture grows and enriches itself. That's what our families are expecting from us. This is what our duty to serve. Our status of autonomy already allows us to meet these challenges. Massive financial transfers for France strengthen our action. Colonization and nuclear tests require justice and truth. But neither these wounds nor going after a new status will exempt the Ponchian government of their own responsibilities. No status, no referendum, no foreign power, no president of the republic, and no UN resolution will build this future in our place. So make sure that your diplomatic quarrels do not destroy what generations have painstakingly built. Come and listen to our voice. We are proud people and we want to make our choices. And you will probably find the links that we have, come into our dugouts and have experience of our life, but we will keep our fate in our hands. I thank you.

I thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to Leanne Lau.

Mr. President, Mr. Chair, thank you, members of the Commission. My name is Leanne Lau, I'm Polynesian and French. Ours is a long story. More than 150 years ago, the first Chinese workers came into our islands. Many stayed and generation of generation participated in the creation and building of our country. And this history, our history, tells me that identity is just an origin. It's also belonging to a destiny that you want to share. I am president of the Tahiti state, which is a movement profoundly attached to France's republic and its values. But we recognize the rights of the Polynesians to join their future. Please allow me to put a question to you, ladies and gentlemen. What does it mean to be a master of your own fate? Polynesia today has a very vast autonomy. We have our own assembly, for example, our own president and government, our economic, social, environmental, cultural councils. We define our economic and social policies to a great extent. We have our own taxes, our right to work, and our exemptions. We regulate our public procurement. We have 77 salaried workers and more than 41,000 companies amongst 280,000 inhabitants. So we and we also have an instruments for investments in 2025, $150 million of investment in 43 basic projects were funded by the state. And this is not counting the funds from the French Development Agency, Europe and other partners. Our autonomy is not perfect and it has to evolve. But when the mission will come to Polynesia, I would like you to take a very specific look into our situation. What is it that we decide ourselves? What means do we have at our disposal? What do we need to improve? And what responsibilities do we want to exercise tomorrow? For me, self-determination is not just a discussion. on ideology or status. It also has to look at the capacities of a people to make decisions, fund its policies, develop its economy, but especially the capacity to protect its freedoms. I would like to very much want to have your mission contribute towards bridges with your countries, your economies, your universities. The prosperity is not conditions our right to choose, but it conditions our capacity to assume our choices. We're attached to France. Other Polynesians want independence. These convictions need to be heard. But within this process, let's give the Polynesians the means to understand and determine their future.

I thank you.

I thank you for your statement. I now go to the floor to Edward Fitch.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, the future of Polynesia belongs to the Polynesians. No person, no party can take upon themselves this right. We, the autonomous did not choose to internationalize the issue of Polynesia. It was President Temaru who made that choice. And our position is very clear. The discussion about our institutional future has to be a bilateral one, and it has to be between the French Polynesia and the French state. And our presence here in front of you does not change the stance. independent advocates are now fractured into three streams. They do not agree on the way forward. So how can President Tomaru can claim that he is engaging all of the people behind the vision, divided vision of its own camp, but we respect that, but a unilateral declaration of sovereignty will not replace popular will. Four years' discussions here, and the independent advocates have been making arguments that we do not recognize. It doesn't correspond to our reality. And that is why we're asking for a C24 information mission in French Polynesia. This mission will see that our institutions function, that our autonomy is real, and that our democracy is very much alive. Come and see how the Assembly is working, the government is working. Listen at how the economy is working. And also, please also see that we have, just like others, certain economic and social difficulties. But we shoulder our responsibilities, and we do this with the constant support of France, similarly to what happened during the COVID in '21, '22. The Gospel of St. John says that the truth will make you free. But this kind of truth is not something that has to be pronounced from a high table. It means that you have to look at facts. We came here in front of you, here in New York, and this kind of travel is very costly. There are about 30 of us who came. Nonetheless, we came to defend our position. We lament the fact that one of us passed away here in New York. And beyond this, which affects every one of us in Polynesia-- Thank.

You, Mr. Fish, for your statement.

And I'll give the floor to

Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I am a French Polynesian, a member of the Polynesian Assembly, and a mayor of a 13,000 community. And this means that I can look at my country in three ways: a woman, someone who is part of history, a member of parliament who participates in our autonomy, and a mother who every day looks at the realities of our population. We are surrounded by the ocean everywhere and has been fashioning our way of living in this world, but also recalls our vulnerabilities. Preserving our environment, having drinking water, sanitation, waste treatment, protect against natural disasters, is not a theoretical concept for a mayor. It's a real responsibility and for our families, it's daily existence. So I'm inviting you to take a look at the Polynesia in all of our reality. We are not denying anything from our history, neither colonization or nuclear tests or their consequences. It is requiring for justice and reparations, but a people is not -- cannot be resumed to the wounds of the past. It also is what we have built and what we will choose to become. We are very deeply Polynesian. Our language is taught and spoken. Our culture lives in our schools and families and institutions. And we do have rights, and they're being exercised by the MPs. And as a mother, I can see them. My country has a government and assembly and a vast scope of competencies. We are fashioning our faith themselves. Our autonomy, of course, is not perfect. It needs to evolve. It's an outcome of a certain history, something that we want to deepen. Our belonging with the French Republic provides us with access to rights and essential solidarities in terms of education, health, security, and infrastructure. Recognizing that is a lot. We are asking for justice, but not giving up what we have today. We want to be able to decide to a greater extent tomorrow without sacrificing what we have today. And we remain profoundly Polynesian without saying that we need to break with France. This is the sense of our autonomous commitment, not remaining immobile, not renouncing anything, but rather taking on responsibility. I'm speaking to as an MP, but also as a mother. And I extend to you this invitation: come to us, come to the archipelago, meet us, our young people, our MPs, our associations, look at what is fragile, but especially take a look at our free schools, our universal healthcare, our living culture, our institutions. Don't come to confirm what you already know.

I thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to Francois Piatti.

Mr. Chair.

Dear delegates, your honor, in the name and the love of God, I would like to thank the committee for allowing me once again, as president of the Maori Protestant Church and as president of the World Council of Churches in the Pacific, to address the issue of the sacred and inalienable right to self-determination of the Maori people with regard with human rights. Our church has never simply watched history happen to our people. From its founding, it has carried one mission that has never wavered, to stand as a vigilant sentinel over the dignity and the rights of the Maori people. I do not say this as a political claim. I say it because it is our faith duty. That duty took concrete form in 2012 when our synod formally supported the re-inscription of Maori on the list of the UN non-self-governing territories. The World Council of Churches in Geneva and the Pacific Conference of Churches in Fiji stood with us that same year. And for us, it cannot be separate from the mission of God. Mr. Chair, we have also acted where the silence was loudest. On the 30th of October 2018, our church handed over to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Hazardous Substances and Wastes before the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, a formal communication on the health consequences of 30 years of French nuclear testing on our people. Then in October 2024, we submit an alternative report to this committee's sister body, the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva, on France's implementation of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In early March this year, our church hosted, under the Council for World Mission, a global consultation of self-determination within the Pacific in Mauinui. We prayed together, we spoke plainly together, and we adopted a joint declaration that says what I have long believed and already stated before this committee Decolonization is not a political option to wait and postpone. It is a moral and faith obligation. Mr. Chair, as Vigilant said, in all, we had been speaking for a generation now. I ask this committee with a humble heart simply to hear it. Self-determination is a human right, and a fair, genuine, and equitable process is required in order to achieve its exercise, as Wisdom stated. There is a time for all, and that time is the Kairos, which is God's time now. Thank you, Maruru, Kouta, Nui, Mr. Chair. Hui, hui, huiya.

Thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to Francois Piaget.

Mr. Chair.

Sorry, Francois, I'm here.

Mr. Chair, distinguished members of the committee, excellencies, education is a powerful tool against historical colonization and against digital colonization. But yet, France doesn't allow decolonization to be a major nor a minor in Tahitian schools. For example, the colonial ways French took over Tahitian land and government is not taught in schools. There is no educational public resource showing the Tahitian version of the Treaty of 1880 by which King Pomare V donated his lands, government, and administration in the hand of France. Though this colonial situation is the origin of many modern land tenure issues and conflicts. In the same way, the work of those helping veterans, victims of radiations from French nuclear testing, like Association Moruroa et Tator, is not taught in schools. Thanks to their service, French state accepted to compensate the people suffering of cancers from nuclear explosions. Also, There is no lesson in books about the way for Mahi Nui to achieve full autonomy, to become a separate state from France, or to be a freely associated state to France, or to be reintegrated in France as a department or a county. When those curriculum are written, France urges those colonial historical facts to be taught without emotion and to be as smooth and soft as tissues. But objectivity in teaching colonization is an obstacle for the truth to be known and for the people to use it for resilience. We have the same weakness in front of digital colonization. of social medias. They are the new colonialism as they carry fake posts in order to raise one community against the other. Education can protect children and young adults as long as curriculum allows to teach them how to detect and fight against digital disinformation and addiction. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you for your intervention. Can you please confirm that you are Mr. Philip Nuffer.

Could you please repeat your name?

This is you said, sir.

Thank you very much. And I'll give the floor to Ambassador.

English Ambassadors, Excellencies, your honor. Affected people and communities must remain at the center of our efforts. This means listening to affected communities and ensuring their meaningful participation in decisions that concern them. A representative of the United Nations Secretary General made this statement recently. Today, I humbly ask this distinguished committee to turn these words into concrete action. We, the people of Ma'ohinui, or survivors of nuclear colonialism. For 30 years, France detonated 193 nuclear explosions in Morini. 60 years after the first bomb, their toxic legacy still affects our people, our lands, our ocean, and future generations. Today, we legitimately ask this committee to recognize us a partner in justice. Because those who bear the consequences must have the power to participate in shaping and developing the solutions. The recent work of the United Nations concerning the Marshall Islands reminds us the consequences of nuclear testing cross generations. Justice must cross generations. Nuclear colonialism continues whenever decisions about our health, our lands, and our future are made for us, without us. Recognition is not enough. Listening is not enough. We must decide together. In 2023, the Assembly of Maori has support the Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. But as the first review conference approach, Maori remains a non-self-governing territory. We cannot participate as a state party. Therefore, we call upon State Parties to establish a permanent mechanism guaranteeing the meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples, peoples of non-self-governing territories and nuclear-affected communities in decisions concerning victim assistance and environmental remediation. Give us a real place where decisions are made and put us at the center of your decisions. Nothing about victims without victims, nothing about our lands without our peoples, nothing about our future without our voice. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to Anna Anie.

Mr. Chair, Excellencies, Your Honor. The United Nations carries a promise: peace, dignity, equality among peoples, and the right to self-determination. These principles must not remain words. They must become reality for our peoples. I speak for a generation that wants to know its history so we can choose our future. In February 2026, I visited the Republic of the Marshall Islands. I met young people carrying the nuclear legacy while facing climate change. This is a shared Pacific history. Pacifica, including Maohini, carries a burden it did not create. The Nuclear Truth Project gives young people affected by nuclear testing a voice. From November 30 to December 4, their voices and ours will be heard here in New York. This reminds me of something essential. Education is an act of decolonization. We need education about our history, colonization, 30 years of nuclear testing, its consequences, climate change, the rights of indigenous peoples, and the protection of our finua and moana, our land and our ocean. Knowledge gives us the power to choose. So I ask this simple question, who decide our future? Our answer is clear. The peoples concerned must decide for themselves. We don't want only to be heard. We want to be recognized as actors of our own future. Our whenua is not only a territory. Our moana is not only a resource. They are our identity, our memory, and our future. May the healing word open the way to a just future. And what politics cannot always do, our churches can carry. The voices of truth and justice. We don't stand for our peoples. We stand with them. And today, we choose to stand. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you for your statement. I now give the floor to Alaitai Tura.

Mr. Chair, distinguished member of committee, excellencies, and. Is it an honor to address you once again? I am a representative of Maori Protestant Church and, first of all, a child of Maori.

Today, I proudly and firmly.

Carry the voice of my island, Gaveva. I carry the cry of my Ma'ohi people, people that has been suffering since 18 from colonialism and Christianity, a system in which my people were stripped of their own identity. Where is the Bougainville, Nussitara, that place where my people live in harmony with their land, traditions?

Languages, and shared values.

Even today, more than 16 years later, the after-effect of nuclear testing persists. Our people, who live.

Only from fishing and their own crops, have been forced to turn to imported foods, leading to an unhealthy diet.

And resulting in issues such as obesity and other lifestyle-related diseases.

We are waiting from you three things: transparency, recognition, and accountability.

We also call for families to have access to equitable medical care.

To this painful legacy, our aid did.

The high cost of living, social inequalities and difficulties in accessing employment.

The scourge of the ice threaten our youth and call for coordinated action in prevention.

Treatment, appropriate support services, and long-term care;

Protecting our lands; preserving and transmitting our languages, history, traditional knowledges; and supporting our schools, our essential commitment to ensure that our children grow up proud of their roots;

While remaining open to the world.

We demand that our rights be respected and that our people participate fully in decisions that shape their future.

I thank you for your statement.

I now give the floor to Taura Terivura.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Fourth Committee, I speak today as a petitioner for the Maori Protestant Church delegation. By doing so, I am bringing you the voice of our communities, families, people who ask themselves more and more what future is left for their children. Self-determination is not an abstraction for us. It's returning to the chart of this United Nations and this committee repeats it every year. But a people can only choose its future freely if it can choose anything freely at all. Mr. Chairman, 52% of our population is under age 30. Instead of being our greatest strength, too many are drinking before they finish school, and more each year are turning to methamphetamine, a drug that barely existed here a decade ago. and now reaches nearly every family. Alcohol is still the main cause of death on our roads and behind the hard rock trade. We are burying our own, killed by people they grew up with, sometimes by their own relatives. It's much the same for our children living with attention disorders, ADHD or autism. Across our five archipelagos, most are never properly diagnosed. and few are still followed by a teacher trained to work with them. A child in the Marquesas Islands can wait years for an evaluation, and a child in Papaiti might get it in months. As of today, Mahinui has no detoxification center built or center for neurodevelopmental disorders for what we are living through now. Give it 10 more years of silence and inaction, and we will not have a people able to wage its future with clear minds, healthy bodies, or free souls. We will have a population worn down, medicated by drink or drugs, instead of cared for, and asked to vote in disunity in such unhealthy conditions. Mr. Chairman, does not self-determination freely exist? as the chart intensifies, that is, people are being asked to choose while its judgment is being taken from it piece by piece, while the new process of decolonization seems to be delayed year after year. I'm reporting this fact to this committee and to the administering power, bearing in mind that Maohinui, French Polynesia, decolonization process without social neighbor health, without dignity, without care for our children, is not just unfair or inequitable, is not decolonization at all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you. I give the floor to Anthony Geros.

Mr. Chair, distinguished members of the committee.

Excuse me?

Anthony Jaros. Go ahead, Anthony Jaros.

Chair, distinguished members of the Fourth Committee, today there are realities that can no longer be ignored. Since the 17th of May 2013, French Polynesia has once again been inscribed on the UN list of non-self-governing territories. 13 years later, however, no genuine process of decolonization has yet begun. The central question is therefore no longer whether our people possess the right to self-determination. The United Nations has already recognized that right. The question is now how to give it practical effect. No United Nations visiting mission has yet taken place, no structured dialogue on decolonization has been opened with the administering power, and no clear program of work has been established to guide the process. Mr. Chair, in my capacity as President of the Assembly of French Polynesia, I have brought before this fourth committee for the first time of the history of my country, petitioners representing all political groups within our institution, regardless of party affiliation. This diversity matters. We are not asking the United Nations to decide our future for us. We are asking it to help create the conditions in which our people can decide that future freely, peacefully, and with full knowledge of the choices before them. That requires three concrete steps. First, a visiting mission of the Special Committee to French Polynesia, so that the United Nations may hear directly from our people and our institutions. Second, a constructive program of work for decolonization under United Nations auspices, with clear stages and guarantees. Third, a structured dialogue with the administering power on the modalities and timetable for a genuine process of self-determination. Our approach is not contentious. It is rooted in truth, dignity and responsibility. But dialogue cannot become a substitute for action. Our request is neither, neither excessive nor radical. It's consistent with the international law. It's consistent with the history. It's consistent with the dignity of peoples. We ask you today not for another declaration of principle, but for the means to make an already recognized right a reality. Unlike New Caledonia, the rescription of French Polynesia remains 13 years later unrecognized by France, with no decolonization dialogue initiated. We therefore seek the diplomatic.

I thank you for your statement. Thank you very much. I give the floor to Tuara Terevarura.

Mr. Chair, distinguished members of the committee, your honor. I am Tuora Tev Arahura, and I thank the administering power for its respectful words. But the facts are cruel. Mauhinui is sick. Epidemics, the Franco-Tahitian war, drugs, those that kill, rising seas, nuclear tests. In the face of these deep wounds, the administering power still refuse to ask forgiveness. Instead, it throws money at our suffering, a bandage over a wound still full of filth. You know what happens next? It fester, spreads, and kills. Whose death? My people. In November 2025, the chief of the defense staff of the French armed force said his country must be ready to accept losing its children, among them ours. The lives of our children for a power that has lied to us, poisoned us, and stolen the keys to our freedom, defense, currency. justice, foreign affairs, our strategic resource. That's enough. Today, I rise for life in Ma'ohinui. We are a peaceful people. We honor the value of life. With the trend of our resilience. Ma'ohinui will rise again. And Ma'ohinui will live. So, to the administering power, Please leave Ma'uhinui in peace. Give back the keys that God entrusted to us, our motherland, Mama Henua, our ocean, Wananuia River, our sky, and all our resources. We will heal. We will regenerate at the rhythm of creation in Ma'uhinui. The Secretary-General has said it. The United Nations must be strong enough to face reality. I, therefore, humbly request the United Nations to guarantee our security against the danger that the administering power and international cooperation pose to our blue economy and our strategic resources. and send a United Nations visit mission in Maohiniui. I am Tuora and I will rise again for life in Maohiniui. I.

Thank you for your statement and I'll give the floor to Richard Tuiva.

Mr. Chairman, Excellencies, since 1978, Tavini Hui Atira Party powerfully aimed at fixing one of the people of French Polynesia's most profound historical injustice in terms of human rights, the denial of the right of self-determination of the people of Mahinui. Our administering power has not yet accepted the full substance of our 2013 re-inscription, insisting French Polynesia's 2004 statute already meets the UN Charter's autonomy criteria. But 12 times now, the UN General Assembly decided that this is not the case. Self-determination is sacred and inalienable under the UN Charter, so as under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. UN General Assembly's 2014 Resolution 69/105 recognized that self-determination is a fundamental human right. As in the case of our late, much missed Leon Tiffaut, a Tavini party official for three decades who had come to New York to support our delegation and who died suddenly of a heart attack in his hotel room two days ago, we cannot understand such inefficiency on the part of the UN's decolonization mechanisms. France's delaying strategy over the past 13 years has given rise to deep frustration within our party and its leadership. It has led to some radicalizing, short-cutting initiatives, for example, by calling for a unilateral declaration of independence, UDI, for our country following a direct public petition. Mr. Chairman, the sense of mistrust of decolonization mechanisms is at stake. Therefore, Tavinui Atira Party calls upon member states of the Pacific region's solidarity, as well as member states of this committee to support referral to the International Court of Justice, ICJ, under Article 96 of the UN Charter for an advisory opinion, as in the 2019 Chagos Islands case, on the legality of France's failure to comply with international law and its UN Charter's obligation. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you for your statement. I give the floor to Thierry Paoletti.

Chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Fourth Committee, excellencies, not once has France agreed to engage in dialogue That is the first thing that we wish to bring to your attention. One resolution adopted in the 65th session and those that have followed called upon the administering power to facilitate visiting missions and to engage with the freely elected officials of the French Polynesia in a decolonization process. Whilst this request has been made time and time again, it has never been followed with action from the administering power. people has elected its parliament, and the parliament has called for this dialogue on several occasions. It should involve formal deliberations, and this request has been made also by elected officials who are not of our political colour. We have always received the same response, whether explicitly expressed or simply conveyed to us through silence. This is a domestic matter which does not fall within the arena for international debate. It is not an international matter. Let things be clear, we're not talking about differences in pace here, Mr. Chairman, or the form that dialogue should take. And administering power has the right to raise issues. And this committee has seen other territories undergo good faith negotiations with administering powers. What France has done is something else entirely. It has refused to recognize that the resolutions of this assembly call for a response, and they've refused to tackle any substance. They have refused to candidly recognise that the cost of this refusal is not equally shared. It is a cost borne by the Polynesian people that has elected institutions calling for this dialogue, and it weighs heavier still on those that continue to wait for the administering power to open the doors to a dialogue on our future, and not a simply formal process to be managed from a distance. We cannot call this an oversight. It's being on for three years, rather it is a repeated choice, despite the explicit demands made by this Committee, and it must be recognised as such. This rejection of dialogue is seen clearly time and time again. I thank you, Chairman.

I thank the petitioner and I now turn to petitioner Silvana Tiatao. You have the floor.

Chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Fourth Committee, Excellencies, We have seen silence for three years. What does that do? It does not only block procedure, but ruins the trust that our peoples have in institutions, institutions that state that they want to protect their right to decide their own fate. Every year, we hear that right recalled. Every year, we wait for the administering power to agree to discuss this matter with our elected representatives. France states that it is committed to human rights and the rights of all peoples, and more specifically, their right to self-determination. These principles take on meaning when they also guide the conduct of a state in terms of how it administers its territories. Responding to a request for dialogue would not compel any specific political solution. It would be simply to recognize that the matter deserves a good faith discussion within the United Nations. Chair, this silence has consequences that go beyond our territory. If the repeated appeals of the General Assembly go unheeded, trust in decolonization processes begins to weaken. Other people might ask themselves what you in what the international community's attention can in fact do for them. We ask this committee to really look at the consequences of this gap between proclamations and action. We're not asking for sanctions. We're asking for this committee to clearly note the moral responsibility that goes with persistent refusals to respond to a request for dialogue. France might reiterate its position before the General Assembly, and could nevertheless agree to preliminary exchanges with us. Three years of silence should not become the new normal in terms of dealing with the requests of a people. The international community as a whole could go to the ICJ and solicit a legal opinion on the basis of Article 96 and following the United Nations Charter. That opinion should be issued looking at the legal grounds and consequences of France's refusal to heed international law. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the petitioner. And now I turn to the petitioner, Lana Eppos-Ahmin. You have the floor.

Chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Fourth Committee, Excellencies, The United Nations Charter calls upon the administering power to transmit information on non-self-governing territories. This obligation allows the United Nations to follow the situation using official data. Article 73e provides for the regular communication to the Secretary-General of statistical and technical information pertaining to the economic, social and educational situation of these territories. This data must come from the State administering the territory. It is not a favour that the administering power can grant or not as it sees fit. It is part of an obligation arising from the UN Charter. Since the reinscription of French Polynesia on the list of NPTs in 2016, the General Assembly has been calling upon France to discharge this obligation. to express regret at the lack of a positive response to this request. Three years have elapsed without any information being submitted under 73E for our territory. We wish this fact to be clearly affirmed and recognised in the follow-up given to our territory, Mr. Chair. The regular submission of information makes it possible to compare how things develop from one year to the next. It makes it possible to ask the administering power for clarification and to discuss a territory's needs on a common basis. It also provides our people with access to the information they need to take free decisions regarding their future. Official information is a prerequisite for democratic debate. This submission of information should not depend on the political opinions of those who today govern. This process must be able to continue from one year to the next, because obligations to a non-self-governing territory have nothing to do with how power shifts, have nothing to do with domestic disagreements. The Secretary-General and this committee must have... regular information coming from a reliable envoy. Therefore, we ask France to resume the transmission of that information. They should clarify when the first submissions will be made and should ensure that they regularly continue after that. We ask the Committee to continue to explicitly follow this issue in its work and in texts submitted to the General Assembly. For our people, three years of no information should not make a Charter obligation into a simple dead letter. The information we require must be effectively communicated. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your statement. And now I turn to the petitioner, Rachelle Flores. You have the floor.

Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Fourth Committee, Excellencies, Every year, the secretariat of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee prepares a working document on French Polynesia. This working paper gathers together information available and allows the Committee members to follow our situation. We recognize the value of this work and the efforts made by those who produce the document. However, we must make a difference, distinguish between the very existence of this document and the cooperation expected from France under Article 73 of the Charter. The Secretariat might compile statistical data that's been published, accessible resources, accessible reports, and other data that's widely available. However, it cannot through its work replace the administering power's obligation to provide official information. Chair, this distinction is not simply a formal procedural matter. When information is submitted by the administering power, that administering power states its source and duly updates it. A document drawn up Using open data does provide valuable information, but it does not compel a response as information submitted by the administering power does. If we don't have this information provided, it gives the impression that the Charter's not really doing its job. The quality of the secretariat's work should not mask the lack of information from France, the fact that A lot of information is publicly available, but that demonstrates, on the contrary, that there is further information that needs to be provided officially by the administering power. We ask that the committee makes that distinction clear. There is officially available data, such as this committee's report, and then there is the information that must come from the administering power. They're not mutually exclusive. We must have both. The public must be able to go and read United Nations data without confusion. And that information allows them to see what's still missing, what they need to ask for, and what the administering power must provide. Transparency is key, and that starts with knowing clearly the source of information. The secretariat's work needs to be recognized. The obligation of administering power is at the same time one that must be upheld. I thank you.

I thank you for your statement. And now I give the floor to petitioner, Tiheva Keao'aho. You have the floor.

Material. Members of the Ford Committee, Excellencies, Your Honor, for our people, natural resources are not merely materials to be extracted. They are bound to our lands, our lagoons, and the ocean that connects our archipelagos. They sustain ways of life, knowledge, and responsibilities that we wish to pass on to future generations. The General Assembly has reaffirmed the right of the people of French Polynesia to own, control, and dispose of their natural resources, including marine resources. that principle must guide real decisions. It is not enough to repeat it in a resolution if, when an important choice arises, our people lack the information and the opportunity to shape that choice. This right is not measured by the market value of a resource. It includes the freedom to use it, but also the freedom to preserve it. Protecting a lagoon, a piece of land, or a reef is also a decision about a country's future. It may matter just as much as a development project. Mr. Chair, permanent sovereignty over natural resources means that decisions must be discussed with the people concerned. A genuine debate requires us to understand the possible effects of a project, to hear the people living in the affected archipelagos, and to consider other paths. A consultation held after the choice has already been made would serve no purpose. Our institution must be able to defend the interest of Maori and answer to our people for decisions they make. Autonomy cannot be just a label if our voices become secondary when lasting choices about our natural heritage are made. We ask for meaningful participation, open debate, and the ability to decide with full knowledge of the facts. We are not asking this committee to choose for us between extraction and protection. We ask to affirm that the resources of a non-self-governing territory cannot be treated as though its people were mere spectators. Our future will also be measured by what we are free to preserve on our lands and in our ocean for the generations to come. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you for your statement. And as a reminder, please, before giving the floor to the next petitioner, may I ask you, the petitioner, to press the microphone button when they hear their name and only then. This may the sound engineer can give you the floor. The microphone will turn red when your microphone is activated. Please press the button of the microphone. And now I turn to the petitioner, Tafi Tapati. You have the floor.

Mr.

Chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Fourth Committee, Your Excellencies. In 30 years, France conducted 193 nuclear tests amongst us. For 30 years, we have been living with the destructive consequences of that. amongst our people. This cannot be considered concluded just because the military program has ended. Our Assembly, therefore, had deliberations on the 6th of July of this year to acknowledge the political, historic responsibility of the institution in the process which led to the secession of France from Moruroa Apolota in '84. We are asking that the Assembly asks forgiveness of our people. The law allows the acknowledgement of the nuclear tests We understand that this law has the merit of existing, but in 2025, less than half of the eligible files were recognized. Putting a file together, bringing evidence, and then going back to this painful and violent history is already a feat that we find very difficult. And this only covers some of the people impacted, and reparations are still very partial and insufficient. Mr. Chair, on the 24th of September, our Assembly passed a political resolution which affirms its solidarity with the Ba'athi people who were a direct victim of the explosions for 30 years and ask for guarantees of complete eligibility for the compensation of victims, which took place between '66 and '98 without the limitation of period. The nuclear tests did not stop with the actual explosions. They continue with future generations. The United Nations should state that nuclear justice exists, justice for the Marshall Islands.

I thank you for your statement. I thank you for this statement. Okay, I thank you for your statement. The next petitioner, I call Weeva Humbling. Please, you have the floor.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Fourth Committee, your excellencies. The seabed around us have great resources, our ocean. It is space of life navigation and connection. There are also minerals to be found there, which people are becoming increasingly interested in. The choices made thereupon will impact many generations. Some of the minerals on the sea bed are needed for technologies, but this should not lead us to hasty conclusions. We know what's on the seabed and the consequences their extraction could have on ecosystems. Deciding to preserve them is also a choice that needs to be heard. The 2004 statute gives the French state the right on the strategic materials. We need to have a public clarification what is covered by that and how this will be exercised if a seabed minerals project is being planned. The legal opacity and the lack of information is not method. Mr. Chair, before any decision is made, our people should know what scientific data is available and to study them. The people of the archipelago and the institutions of the country depend on the people who depend on the protection of the ocean must participate in this discussion. and information has to be complete. The General Assembly recalled the right of the people of the French Polynesia on their marine resources and submarine minerals, and we demand that this be respected when it comes to future decisions. This is not a fait accompli. It cannot be so without active participation of our people. We're not asking the Fourth Committee to choose between protection and use. We ask that this choice not be taken away from us. Using our resources means that we should discuss any decision about that. The ocean is where we live. and part of our future. So any decision on its depths needs to respect this reality. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your statement. And now I give the floor to the next petitioner, Houenouay Le Kail. You have the floor.

Mr. Chair, Excellencies, members of the First Committee, your honor. In 1963, France established its nuclear testing center in our islands. Within a decade, a largely self-sufficient society became one built on consumerism, structurally dependent on transfer from the French state. Over time, the subsidized public sector drew capital and labor from the rest of the economy, harming our productive industries as our people left the lagoons and the fields. In 1962, our export covered 42% of our imports. Today, barely 5%. We import three-quarters of our food and almost all our energy. Three decades after the test ended, in 1996, the legacy remains. Our statute may say we control our economic policies. In practice, we have far less room for maneuver than a fully autonomous country. We have no control over monetary policy. Our currency is the CFP franc, once the franc of the French colonies of the Pacific, is issued in Paris and pegged to the euro. Without monetary tools, our governments have had to rely on fiscal policy alone. Yet our fiscal system was itself shaped by France. To attract civil servants to our islands, France maintained an income tax-free haven and doubled their salaries. that legacy have proved nearly impossible to challenge, despite the various changes in our political statute. Under political pressure to keep the status quo, our governments have kept funding public services, mainly through indirect taxation. Such taxation deepens inequality, hinders our exports, and drives up the cost of living. The data bear this out. Prices are 31% higher than in France. Our Gini coefficient, last updated over a decade ago, places our income inequality well above France and above independent neighbors such as Fiji. We all seek a sustainable, equitable, climate-resilient economy. It cannot be achieved without the levers of a sovereign state. Without political emancipation, there can be no economic emancipation. We therefore ask this committee to recognize these facts and to support our people in gaining the means to build an economy that reflects the aspiration. Thank you, Marudu.

I thank you for the statement. And now I give the floor to the petitioner, Moyawa Mamatoa Yahou Tapa. You have the floor.

Mr. Chair, distinguished members of the Fourth Committee, Excellencies, Your Honors. Today, I bring you one word, people. For us, that word carries everything. We are the Maori people of Te Moananui-a-Hiva, whose ancestors navigated this great ocean for thousands of years, a people with its land, its languages, and its memory, older than any administration and still standing today. Yet, sovereign decisions are still taken by Paris. justice, defense, currency, foreign affairs, and strategic resources. At home, some close their eyes for convenience, but we must still find our way forward together. One thing reminds the world that we exist in our own right, the world people. Our identity comes from the creator, but our recognition as a people was fought for, first by our ancestors, the ones who carried that identity. Centuries later, others defended it against colonization. Orihiro, Turorapoto, and many women and men kept our languages alive and affirmed our identity. The Kanak people waged the same struggle, and Jean-Marie Tjibaou and Yiwini Yiwini gave their lives for it. Within France, other peoples also defend their identities. In our land, our political leaders shape different chapters of our history. Paid with prison and exile, John Tiariki stood up to General de Gaulle against nuclear testing, and Papi John Doom gave a voice to its victims. Francis Sanford opened the road to autonomy, and Gaston Flosse extended it. Mitoas Kartimaru carried us to this house and still fights for our sovereignty. And our friend and fellow fighter, Leon Tefo, who passed away here in New York, gave his strength to this struggle until the very end. He should have been here with us today. Now, we stand here with all those at home to carry on their work and build our country. We are a people, not a population. Like the Kanak, we have the right to decide, as the United Nations has confirmed. The administering power cannot erase it. That right belongs to us alone. Some of us have come here every year since 2013 at our own expense, crossing half the world for three minutes at this microphone. We come because this world is worth the journey. Excellencies, thank you for seeing us as a people, a people that will decide its own future in Ma'ohinui. Freedom, thank you.

I thank you for your statement, and now I give the floor to the petitioner, Alain Salmon, you have the floor.

Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates, our island can seem tiny, but around the islands you have a maritime space which is more than 5 million square kilometers. It's greater than the European Union. For our ancestors, the ocean was not a border, it was a road Today, France sees in our countries as major strategic positioning. Its aircraft and ships survey our waters. In 2025, its military expenditure in French Polynesia was in excess of 180 million euros. And our territory contributes towards France's presence in Indo-Pacific, and we acknowledge that. But Self-determination means that we need to be able to answer the following simple question: if our people choose tomorrow another institutional path, how are we going to ensure our defense and our foreign affairs? This question cannot be left uncertain. France today is discharging its responsibilities. It therefore has to be fully involved in the dialogue within which we need to look at various ways of possible dialogue. Our group, Aphanou Tia, is a sovereignist voice here. We view our country as a sovereign state, partner to France, and fully integrated in the region. But this choice will be made by our people. Our responsibility here is to prepare this choice, not to presume what the choice will be. The work programme that we're asking for should enable us to study the various options, their consequences, their guarantees, and their timetables. The visiting vision of the special C24 committee also should enable them to listen to our people when they're at home. Sovereignty does not mean isolation. In the Pacific, security is already being built through cooperation among states and regional partners. Our country has been a member since 2016 of the Pacific Island Forum. Therefore, my delegation asks that defense our foreign affairs and the various kinds of cooperation that could come into being tomorrow be part of a dialogue between the administering power and our institutions in Papeete and be done with the support of the United Nations. We would like to be able to choose our future, knowing with whom and under what conditions we will ensure our security in future. It's with this spirit that my delegation came to you. We want to open the world without losing ourselves cooperate without dependency and negotiate without giving things up. Thank you.

And now I give the floor to the petitioner, Tematai Legayak. You have the floor.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, on the 24th of December, we passed with a large majority a resolution put forward by the independence MPs. We decided to put forth four requests: a visiting mission to French Polynesia, a program of work to look at various options for the future, and a dialogue with the administering power supported by the UN. Why are we asking for this? Our autonomy is broad, but we cannot on our own decide on how it will evolve. Our current scope, it has been decided by a framework law in Paris. From Polynesia, we have five MPs, a very low share of those who will decide on their political development. And this gives us to a major question. How far is our power on descending of future? We need to be able to decide our own future, and we shoulder that responsibility. But sovereignty doesn't mean isolation or rupture. It means that we should decide on our future and building a partnership with other countries, in particular France. Of course, this is not a replacement of the choice of our people. But before we ask them for our political future, all of the questions need to be put. What nationality, what currency, what security, what competence will we be able to exercise ourselves or in partnership. This needs to be found in a dialogue within the program of work so that fears be allayed as regards the development of our political future. Each choice and consequences has to be clearly presented because the political status is not an end of itself. It's a tool for our country, for the political development of our country, which will to be by our country. We're an Oceanic country. We have a wealth of culture and peoples. Self-determination should never divide us. It should enable us to define what brings us together, to build a citizenship and a community which is common to us all. We can have different convictions, but we have one country and one people. So let's ask all of the questions and figure out all of the answers. And once all of the options in front of us, the decision will be made by the people. It is for this that we defend our sovereignty. We want to be open to the world. We want to negotiate without giving anything up. I thank you.

For your statement. And now I give the floor to petitioner, Marielle Kohu-Moyetini. You have the floor.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the delegates, I come from islands which is more than 1400 kilometers from here. You cannot understand the French Polynesia if you don't visit it. You have to meet those who live there. Since we were put back on the list on non-self-governing territories, We are waiting for a visiting mission. Our Assembly asked that this mission finally take place in agreement with France. And we're asking you today that you make this a reality. A visiting mission is not just a formality. This will enable the special C-24 Committee to see the institutions, meet the political forces, the civil society, and especially the people. the fishermen, the tradesmen will probably not come to New York, but the United Nations can come to them. And this mission needs to reflect the geographic reality of our country. We ask that it come to the five archipelagos and not just the one. It needs to listen to all of these sensibilities without deciding on the final choice that will be made for a people. And this will then lead to the development of program of work by answering the questions from our people. and the information that will be necessary to exercise the right to self-determination. Our group, ANEF and DIA, is ready to work with the United Nations on the conditions which could be conducive here on the logistics of this mission. My delegation asks that your next resolution ask the C24 Committee to conduct a visiting mission into French Polynesia in the five archipelagos that constitute that. In consultation with the administering power and our institution, our country is ready to host you. 13 years after we were put back on the list, the time has come to meet our people at home. It is the spirit of my delegation that we want to voice here. Open to the world without losing ourselves, negotiate without renouncing, and cooperating without dependence.

I thank you for your statement. And now I give the floor to petitioner, Sylvie Tahia Nemozer. You have the floor.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished delegates. On September, the MPs of Polynesia, which do not have the same position, decided to pass a common resolution, which is asking for three things, a visiting mission, a program of work, and a dialogue with France. That's because we are not all in agreement on the final decision that we must agree on methodology. our family, they're asking a legitimate question, namely, where do we start? At what pace? What will be the consequences of each of the options? What guarantees will we have? And the program of work should provide answers to these. Last December, the General Assembly asked France to open a dialogue and to consider developing a program of work. We today propose that we go to that stage that we develop such a program. It has to be very specific. It has to provide the various stages of the process, organize obtaining information with the people on each of the stage, provide the democratic guarantees, the monitoring by the United Nations, and determine a timetable so that we can measure how fast we're moving forward. No political sensibility should be excluded. Our group, Avanitia, is in favor of sovereignty. Others are in favor of other options. All should be able to present themselves, explain themselves, and have a discussion under equal conditions. We also propose that a pluralist committee accompany an information campaign with the people by bringing in especially groups from the Assembly, France, the community, the church, and with the support of the United Nations. The goal here is not to have one option be victorious. The goal is to have a process which will allow people to choose. We therefore ask that your next resolutions ask the administering power and our institutions to work out together a program of work and timetable, within the framework of a dialogue in Papeete, with the support of the United Nations. Our people will decide the final destination. It's up to make sure that we go down that road under proper conditions. It is in this spirit that the delegation has come here. We want to open to the world without losing ourselves. We want to cooperate without being dependent and negotiate without giving things up. I thank you.

Your statement. And now I give the floor to petitioner, Odette Tamara Samin, oppose Homay. You have the floor.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished delegates, Your Honor. I come from Pakarua, which is kilometers away from the capital, and we want to discuss the issue of self-determination, which leads to the question, what will this change for us of our currency, our nationality, the fate of all of those who serve the state? Today, some of those responses will come from France, and that is why we're asking for a structured dialogue between the administrative power and our institutions to be and to be accompanied by the United Nations. This dialogue should not be just a general one. It should enable us to go through competency by competency and look at the consequence of each of the institutional choices, to look at the respective responsibilities, the means that will be needed, the guarantees, and if need be, the transition mechanism. Part of this work, how accessible is it to our people? The program of work needs to organize a neutral information campaign, which is accessible and pluralistic. Each option has to be presented with the possibilities, limitations and consequences. It needs to be accessible because the same information need to reach all of our islands in French and in our Polynesian languages. It needs to be pluralistic because no political faction needs to appropriate any faction. Information needs to be public, sources identified and information reliable. group defends its sovereignist position, others have a different stance, but within the process it's our people, our people alone, who will choose. We're not asking the United Nations to define our future for us. We're asking the United Nations to help guarantee the conditions within which our people will themselves decide. So my delegation is asking that the United Nations facilitate the opening of a structured dialogue between the administering power and our institutions in Papeete, and that it accompanies the dissemination of neutral and pluralistic information within the framework of the program of work. Freedom of choice starts with the quality of information you receive. Opening to the world without losing ourselves, cooperating without being dependent, and negotiating without giving things up is our motto. I thank you.

I thank you for your statement. And now I give the floor to the next petitioner, Beatrice Flores Legayac. You have the floor.

Chair, delegates, Your Honor. A choice is only truly free if it is an enlightened one, and when it relates to the future of a people, this demand for enlightenment is part of assuring a democratic response. Our Assembly brings together people of different political colours, our delegation in and of itself. has people of different alliances. We don't ask any privileges to be given to us in light of our political colours. The rules of the game must be the same for everyone. The programme of work must therefore present all the ways forward for our territory, independence or remaining within the Republic, as well as other options which might come under discussion for each of us, for each and every person, they must know what's allowed to them, what is guaranteed, what is demanded of them and what the consequences of each choice would be. The various political colours and groups must all have an equal playing field in terms of presenting their manifestos and agendas. They must have debates based on the same information, the same data and verified documents, verified that is, independently. The special committee, the C24 visiting mission, must also hear from people of all sides and all swades of our society. This is a prerequisite for the credibility of the process. Today, electoral law falls within France's remit. Tomorrow, if our people are to decide their future, a dialogue with the power will also have to broach democratic guarantees that relate to whatever choice is made and protect it. The role of the UN here will be important not to favor one option over another, but rather to contribute to guaranteeing pluralism, transparency and the integrity of the process. Our ambition must be a simple one, that is to ensure that after the choice is made, everyone can recognize that their voice was heard, that information was accessible and that the rules were fair for all. My delegation also asks for a peaceful, pluralistic and transparent process to be organized with the support of the United Nations. We ask that democratic guarantees be part of the dialogue between the administering power and our Papuian institutions. The result is to be decided upon by the people. Our common responsibility is to guarantee the freedom of that people's choice. It is in this vein that our spirit, rather, that our delegation comes here today. We need to open to the world without losing each other. We need to cooperate without being dependent. We need to cooperate without ever throwing in the towel. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement. Now, I give the floor to petitioner Mike Cohen. You have the floor.

Chair, ladies and gentlemen, delegates, Your Honor, self-determination cannot be boiled down to a merely institutional matter. It involves knowing who does what, who has what power, what power do they exercise over which people and with what resources. In 2025, French Polynesia was dependent to the tune of $2 billion. There are competencies that only France holds, defense, security, and justice. We recognize the contribution that France makes, but to seriously prepare our future, this data must be a tool for a decision to be made. Our group, AFANUTIA, therefore proposes the establishment of an inventory, taking stock of the competencies that France holds. All of these competencies, how much do they cost? How many people hold authority within them? What infrastructures do they use? What qualifications are required? What human and financial resources would be necessary if these competencies changed? This information must be made public and incorporated into the program of work. This would make it possible to compare the different possible ways forward on the basis of fact, rather than deciding a future based on fear approximation. The principle is simple. Before we contemplate handing over responsibilities and competencies, we need to clearly understand what these competencies are and the resources allocated to them. The French Constitution provides for a transfer of competencies to go hand in hand with appropriate resources. We propose that that same demand for clarity guide the dialogue regarding our future. Consequently, my delegation asks that this inventory tied to figures be put on the table as part of a dialogue between the administering power and our Papete institutions. This with the support of the United Nations. Here our ideas will come together to for informed rules. No competencies can be discussed in isolation of the financial, human and technical resources necessary for it to be deployed. Once this inventory is made public, it could feed into the information submitted to the Secretary-General under Article 73 E. The choice will be made by our people, but for them to be properly enlightened, we first and foremost need to establish the facts. Then we need to have this shared stock taking exercise, this inventory, then a free choice can come. It's in that spirit that we come here today. We need to open to the world, cooperate without losing each other. We need to cooperate without being dependent and negotiate without throwing in the towel.

The floor to petitioner Hananiah Taurua. You have the floor.

Chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, petitioners, your honor. In the daily lives of our Polynesian families, as is the case elsewhere, few things are as tangible as money. It speaks to everyone at home in French Polynesia. We pay for things in the Pacific franc. To give you an idea of the orders of magnitude we're talking about here in New York, a $10 note is worth roughly 1,000 at home. Why do I say roughly? Because the Pacific franc is not pegged to the dollar, but to the euro French currency. Its value is fixed by Paris and since 1999 our 1000 franc note is worth has been worth exactly 8.38 euros. This stability is something our families experience every day in their monthly salary, their mortgage, life savings. More than 4.5 billion euros have been put aside by our families in their banks. We recognize the role that France plays today in ensuring that stability. But tomorrow our people will choose their future and before they make that choice each family will ask themselves the same questions: will my salary retain its value? Will my savings be protected? Will my groceries be more expensive? And, first and foremost, will tomorrow guarantee the value of our currency, and according to what rules? We propose examining all of these issues without taboo and with no prejudice. Two hypotheses are on the table. We can keep the Pacific franc or create a Polynesian currency pegged to the euro or to another currency. For us, whatever tomorrow's currency It must remain pegged to a major one. That is what gives trust to financial markets and security to our families. Whatever our people choose, they must know the effects tied to that choice. They must have figures to hand when making their choice, figures that are verified by economies of all colors this work will be undertaken as dialogue unfolds and will follow the program of work a visiting mission must hear our families and our business owners my delegation asked for monetary stability savings protection and the exchange rate mechanisms and the circulation of capital we ask that all these issues be placed on the agenda for dialogue between the administering power and our institutions with the support of the UN our people must understand the value of their choice and the consequences it will have. We come to you therefore with this demand, again, open to the world without losing each other, cooperate without dependency, negotiate without ever throwing in the towel.

You have the floor.

President, Madam.

Chair, ladies and gentlemen, delegates, members of the committee. When an children, a child begins to take flight, he is called upon to remind where he comes from, the oceans, the shells that are so dear to him. We have wealth, we have riches, we have 5.5 million square thousand kilometres, we have our seas and all of our wealth that is part of our common heritage. We have a natural environment that is our heritage and it is much coveted because Indeed, it is coveted. There's cobalt, which is the blue gold of Polynesia. There's other minerals which are much coveted too. These are minerals that should be exclusively mined by our Polynesian people. But yet these are issues that are discussed elsewhere, sometimes without us at the table, in diplomatic fora that we cannot participate in because we don't have that competency. It is not decreed, it is not enshrined in statutes. All of this is invoked to give other people control over resources that are our own. We must come together and ensure we can exercise our sovereignty over our own resources. This strategic access is not simply economic or financial. It is Polynesian to consider that we consider the sea not only as an asset, but as something that feeds us. We have an umbilical tie to our ocean. It feeds our everyday life. is an abundant environment that we share, we protect and we admire, along with those that know what they are dealing with, that are aware of its value, alongside those that appreciate it and take account of the Polynesian bond with the ocean, nature and environment. Yes, You can share our fishery resources, we will share them, both our marine and our seabed resources, but do so with full respect for them. Because yes, we need to prepare for transmission of our common heritage to those who tomorrow will have stewardship over it as Polynesians and for the benefit of Polynesia. We will be handing over an environment to you, but please When you make choices about our future, do so in an enlightened way. Keep an eye on our open skies and look after them so that everyone can take flight when they want to and when they wish to. We say, "Maiva, Yorana," to those who in good faith come to us once again, come home once again, but we must always bid a fond farewell to those taking flight or taking to the seas. May you always be brave, thank you.

Now I give the floor to petitioner Pauline Niva. You have the floor.

Chair, ladies and gentlemen, delegates, your honor. Justice and security are part of the institutions whose value we are fully aware of when we need them. For families facing violence, It is the gendarmerie who take action when a child is in danger. It is a judge who protects him or her. Today, France, in French Polynesia, holds competency in terms of justice and security. In 2025, France devoted around $225 million to this area. We recognize that commitment as well as that of men and women who discharge their mandates. responsibilities are humanely shared between us. 42% of gendarmes serving on our island come from our country, our land. This is an important reality. Preparing for the future is an exercise that's already begun in some areas. Tomorrow, according to the path forward our people choose, organising justice and security will be things that might evolve. We must therefore now respond to very tangible questions. How many magistrates, clerks, law enforcement officers, gendarmes are necessary? How much will their training cost? How much time will be necessary to train the professionals that we need so that they are able to perform their duties? And what type of cooperation with France could be maintained or developed? Are affinity groups views sovereignty as a responsibility. It's not sufficient to simply call for authority in one area or another. You need to be able to exercise that competency and guarantee the provision of services. It is precisely the goal of the program of work that we're calling for. As such, my delegation asks for justice and security to be put on the agenda for dialogue between the administering power and our institutions. This dialogue must examine various hypotheses in terms of whether competencies are to be shared or transferred. Whichever the way forward chosen is, staffing, financing, training and time needs must be assessed. We want this dialogue to be held in Papeete, our capital, with the support of the United Nations. The visiting mission might also wish to meet with professionals concerned and the families they protect. Preparing for self-determination also involves guaranteeing that no choice in terms of an institutional framework undermines the protection of our people. It is in this spirit that our delegation has come to this meeting. We want to open to the world without losing ourselves, cooperate without depending. We want to negotiate without giving up. Thank you.

I thank you. Now I give the floor to petitioner Bruno Flores. You have the floor.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Fourth Committee, your excellencies, greetings. I'm asking for very specific things today, that France should finally open the dialogue on the self-determination process for French Polynesia. Since we were put back on the list in 2013, the resolutions of the United Nations have been calling on the administering power to cooperate with its institutions and with our institutions. This has been going on for a long time, and we are expecting, we would like a response now. It needs to be methodical. Who will participate in this dialogue? What will be done for the public? What options will be looked at? What will be the timetable for the people to make a choice? These are procedural questions, but they also determine the freedom and credibility of future choices. Mr. Chair, France could start by designating the interlocutors and by meeting the countries' representatives within the resolutions of this Assembly of ours. The various political leanings have to be heard, and the process has to provide for information provided to all of the archipelagos and to ensure that no one will decide in our stead. The agreements on the future status are real, and they must create conditions where we should all be able to decide. This does not ask that France decides; it asks us to do so. Otherwise, it will not be a free decision within this process of self-determination. Without a dialogue, citizens do not know how their voice will be counted. A timetable, people who are identified will make this kind of work more reliable. We therefore ask that France be invited to officially respond to that by sitting down together with the representatives of our institutions and to conduct dialogue with the assistance of the United Nations. Silence will resolve nothing of future. ask demands more than and better than a new delay. We need and we ask for this real work within which our people should be able to participate. I thank you.

I thank you. Now I give the floor to petitioner Jeanne Vianney. You have the floor.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Fourth Committee, your excellencies. Greetings. Since 2013, French Polynesia once again is on the list of the non-self-governing territories. And every year, the General Assembly reaffirms the right of our people to have a free decision on their future. We are asking today that we move on to the specific means in this resolution. and we ask for a visiting mission. The visiting mission will allow the UN to see the realities on the ground, and they will be able to listen to the various institutions, political leaning, civil society, and the people who are unable to come to New York. Our archipelagos are far from each other, and diversity has to be taken into account whilst preparing the visit. Mr. Chair, a visiting mission is not to decide in our stead. It's not there to favor a given option. The role is to listen, to collect information, and to report on what they will have seen, and to help the international community to better understand the conditions under which our people will exercise their right to self-determination. To be useful, the visit has to allow for the expression of various viewpoints. It mandates places and people to listen to need to be prepared. The people who live in various archipelagos should not be reduced to symbolic meetings. They should be able to take the floor. with the mission. The United Nations resolutions ask the administering power to facilitate such a visit and invites the chair of the special committee to undertake the measures needed to prepare it. We ask, therefore, that this work move forward together with a timetable in cooperation with the institutions of our country and in respect of all of the opinions. This mission is not to replace the dialogue or the decision that will be made. It will we bring forward to the knowledge and the voices of the territory. People need to be heard above and beyond the document in New York. For this visit need to be prepared and implemented. Our people need to be listened to at home before they decide on their own future. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank you. Now I give the floor to petitioner Manalani Tokahi Harehoye. You have the floor.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, greetings. behind the competencies which France exercises, their institutions, but especially their men, women, and families. More than 11,000 people work for the state, for education, security, justice, administration, and the armed forces. Side by side with them, there are those who have served the state throughout their life and who are pensioners now. In 2025, the French state spent about 240 million euros in pension payments in my country. And we acknowledge that. But when we're talking about institutional arrangements, We have immediate questions. Who will be paying the pensions, for example, or paying the security officers? These issues cannot remain differently interpreted rumors. There are certain rights that have been acquired through years of work, and our group is asking, therefore, that each security officer receive specific information on the consequences of each of the options. The visiting mission by the special committee should meet the teachers, officers of the state, and the pensioners. The program of work needs to provide a great visibility and be accompanied by a timetable and guarantees. My delegation, therefore, is asking that the situation of the pensioners and those who work for the state be part of the dialogue between the administering powers and our institutions in Bapeat. Together with the United Nations, we ask that the rights acquired be fully guaranteed. regardless of what choice our people will ultimately make. And when the transfer of competencies is planned, it has to be assessed not just financially, but also from the human viewpoint. How many people into what profession, with what qualifications, what hiring and training needs will there be? Self-determination cannot place thousands of families in uncertainty. Preparing the choice of our people also means that women and men are safe regard their future. It is with this spirit that we came to you today. We want to open ourselves to the world without losing ourselves. We want to cooperate without being dependent, and we want to negotiate without giving things up. Thank you.

I thank you. Now I give the floor to petitioner Manina Killian. You have the floor.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, delegates, greetings. I thank you very much for giving me the floor. I speak today on behalf of a group to touch upon an issue which is sensitive for us, namely our nationality. This is a simple reality for us getting documents, having protection and transmitting rights to our children. Before any institutional choice, these issues have to be resolved. The nationality today that we have is under France. Under Article 14 of our Statute, it is therefore up to the administering power to inform our people. The future choices are sometimes seen as choices that pit the past and the future against each other. In the Pacific, we know that nationalities can be negotiated. The Cook Islands, for example. We're not proposing that model. We're just saying that the consequences have to be known before we make a choice. Nationality is something that organizes identity, protection by the state, movement of people, and access to public services. It structures a link between an individual and the administrative power. When institutional choice confirms the current nationality, well, it has a stabilizing effect. Civil rights are guaranteed, obligations ensured, and the relationship with France maintained. When the institutional option changes nationality, well, the consequences become more complicated. Certain civil rights are evolved. The level of protection changes. administrative or fiscal status adapt, and everyone has to undertake measures to preserve their rights. Where nationality is uncertain, the effects are most felt. We have unequal access to services, administrative complexity, and loss of confidence. And this is why my delegation proposes that we have a dimension on nationality on the programme of work to make sure that each option is presented with the consequences following from it. Our institutions also have to clarify their position on dual nationality. Our request to the United Nations is simple: make sure that this is included in the dialogue with the administering power to make sure that the Polynesian people exercise their right to self-determination freely and in full knowledge of the situation. There has to be transparency. It's a necessary precondition for choosing. Being open to the world without losing ourselves, cooperating without being dependent, and negotiating without giving up. I thank you.

I give the floor to petitioner, Eila Flores Natua. You have the floor.

Chair, ladies and gentlemen, delegates, greetings. I come from Raiatea. At home, Where I live, as is the case elsewhere in French Polynesia, three things are inextricably land, work and the ability to build a future at home. Our status today allows our country to take certain measures to protect local employment, foster the activities of those that live sustainably on their lands and allows us to have some control over land tenure. This was all protected in certain Republican laws, and we recognise that fact. But this all poses a fundamental question for our future. What protection does our people wish to retain? What protection do we want to bolster or give up, according to which path we choose forward. Our land is not simply an economic asset. It is a family, cultural, and collective heritage. Employment is not simply a statistic. It allows our young people to live and thrive at home, and businesses allow our families to themselves create their own income. The program of work must consequently incorporate these three facets. employment, economic activity and land ownership. Whatever the future path forward chosen is, our people must know what margin for decision they have today, what changes that could undergo tomorrow and what they can negotiate. The C24 visiting mission must also come to the archipelago namely to Raheati'a. They must meet those who cultivate the land, those that are looking for a job, and those that create their own business. Our group, Afanuti'a, is pro-sovereignty. The choice, whatever it may be, will belong to our people. Our responsibility is to ensure that that choice is an enlightened one. People must know about the very daily consequences their choice might have. Therefore, we ask that protections for economic activity, land tenure, and employment be subjects on the agenda for the dialogue between the administering power and our institutions in Papeete with the support of the United Nations. The future of our country's institutions cannot be decoupled from our people's ability to work, be entrepreneurs and live on their own land. It's with this in mind that our delegation has come to here. We ask open to the world without getting lost, cooperate without being dependent, cooperate without giving things up. That is our motto. Thank you.

I give the floor to petitioner Elise Vana. You have the floor.

President, Chair, ladies and gentlemen, delegates. Since the beginning of this hearing, our delegation has presented to you a coherent proposal, a visiting mission, a programme of work, a structured dialogue with the administering power. These requests are united by one conviction, that is that the ultimate choice must be made by our people, but so that tomorrow they are able to shoulder more responsibility, whatever the path forward they choose. Our country must also have men and women able to shoulder these responsibilities. Behind all competencies, there are jobs that need to be done. Clerks, judges, magistrates, security agents, the security of police, gendarmes, So there are air traffic controllers that are needed, midwives, there are officials needed to administer things such that we see the continuation of public services. capacity, a country's capacity to administer its own affairs is something that must be prepared. All of this must be in the program of work. Every competency that France today exercises is one we need to assess. We need to look at needs. How many people need to be trained in what crafts? Where will they be trained? With what partners? And according to what timeline? France has administration schools and expertise that can be used to provide that training in New Caledonia. France is already engaged. Decades ago, they worked with us to train middle and senior management officials. Cooperation, we hope, of this kind will be discussed with our country. Training management officials does not mean pre-empting an institutional choice. It simply helps us to be able to freely choose our destiny. This training plan must be placed on the programme of work and on the agenda for the dialogue between the administering power and our institutions in Papeete, with the support of the United Nations delegates. We are not asking you to choose our fate. We are asking you to help us to prepare the conditions for our choice. It will be up to our people to make the decision. It will be up to the administering power and our institutions to engage in dialogue. The United Nations must support the self-determination process in accordance with the mandate. That is the rationale behind the three demands that we bring to you today. And it is in this spirit that our delegation has come to you. Open to the world without getting lost, cooperate without depending, negotiate without giving things up.

Cooperating without becoming dependent, negotiating without giving up, Maruru.

I thank the petitioner. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, we have heard the last petitioner on the question of French Polynesia. We will now turn to the question of Gibraltar. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, His Excellency Mr. Fabien Raymond Picardo, is present and wishes to address the Committee. I suggest that the committee invite the Chief Minister to make a statement. It is so decided. I invite the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to take a seat at the committee's table. Sir, you have the floor for up to seven minutes.

My 25th autumn in this room, a quarter of a century. When I first came here in 2002, I was 30 years old. I sat behind the great Sir Joe Bossano. I did not say a word. I listened and I learnt. 25 years on, having addressed you 15 times, I speak to you for the last time as Chief Minister of Gibraltar. And I do so in a year that history will not let us ignore. Because this December, it will be 80 years since Gibraltar was first placed on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories. 80 years. Four Chief Ministers of Gibraltar have come before the United Nations to make our people's case in that time. Sir Joshua Hassan came first, in 1963, to tell you that Gibraltar is ours. Sir Joe Bosano brought us back in 1992. He promised we would keep coming until you acted on our freely expressed wishes as a people. Sir Peter Caruana rightly told you for 16 years that you should treat the self-determination of our people as paramount. And I have addressed you as leader of the opposition in 2011 and as Chief Minister every year I could since to tell you the same thing in my own words. Eight decades on your list. Six decades of speeches. Four successive leaders. One consistent message. because the international legal principles governing our decolonization have not changed, and neither have we. So let me state the law plainly one last time. Article 73 of the Charter makes the interests of the inhabitants of a non-self-governing territory paramount, not the interests of any neighbor or of any claimant. Only the people of a territory. Us, the people of Gibraltar. Article 1 of both international covenants, extended to Gibraltar 50 years ago, declares that all peoples have the right to self-determination. Resolution 1514 also says all peoples, not some, all peoples. Resolution 1541 says the obligation to transmit information in respect of a territory applies when the territory is separate and distinct from its administering power. A state that merely claims such a territory and has no legal ties of territorial sovereignty with it has no standing in its decolonization. And the International Court of Justice in the cases of Namibia and Western Sahara and in its Chagos opinion of 2019 has made these principles clear. The right of self-determination is the governing principle of decolonization. It requires the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned. And the international community as a whole has an obligation to ensure that the right is fulfilled. Territorial integrity, properly understood as a shield for colonized people. It is not a sword in the hands of expansionist neighbors, whether in Southern Europe, South America, or elsewhere. What stands against all of our unbeatable legal arguments? nothing but the resolutions of the 1960s, resolutions procured by a murderous dictator whose legacy democratic Spain has rightly left behind. And the people of Gibraltar have spoken. In 1967, 99% of us chose not to pass under Spanish sovereignty. In 2002, 99% of us rejected shared sovereignty with Spain. We have been asked and we have been clear and unequivocal in our answer. All we await is for you to hear our answer and to start acting in keeping with the clearly expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar. Chair, since I last addressed you, something important has changed. The treaty between the United Kingdom and the European Union in respect of Gibraltar has now been signed and is being provisionally applied. It was negotiated at our request and with my government leading for our people at the table. removed a short but no less cruel iron curtain that General Franco drew closed to divide families and friends. And our treaty states in terms that nothing in it affects the positions of sovereignty of each of the parties. So understand what we have done. We have removed the barbed wire and the chain-link fence, but we have not wavered on our sacrosanct sovereignty. We have shown that our people can build friendship with our neighbor without surrendering a single one of our rights. Cooperation we welcome, but we will never capitulate. And so, Chair, Direct the C-24 to send a visiting mission to Gibraltar. Let them come and see a self-governing, democratic, prosperous people, confident in who we are and confident in our rights. And then do what the charter requires. Recommend our removal from the list. Chair, I was born in 1972. behind a frontier closed by a military dictator to seek to break our democratic will. But it did not break our will. My parents' generation kept our country alive. My generation built it into a modern nation. And our children's generation will inherit that nation with clearly established inalienable rights. I came to this room first as a young man who listened avidly. I leave it as a father who speaks passionately with children who understand clearly, because you can keep us on the list of non-self-governing territories, you can pretend that institutional inertia in the C24 excuses you from acting, but you cannot deny us our right to self-determination. You may outlast this Chief Minister, but you will never outlast the people of Gibraltar. And let me give you some advice. After 80 years, it's time that you wake up and smell the coffee. Gibraltar belongs only to the Gibraltarians. It always has, and it always will. Thank you, Chair, and goodbye for now.

I thank the Chief Minister. Does any member wish to ask a question to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar or comment on his statement? There are no requests for the floor. We will now listen to one petitioner on the question of Gibraltar. I invite Mr. Richard Butigieg to take a seat at the petitioner's table. You have the floor, sir.

Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you once again. I have stood before this committee many times over the years. I have spoken about our history, about democracy, and of course, our right to self-determination. Today, however, I want to speak about what is possible when people choose to work together. In 2026, after years of difficult negotiation, Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and the European Union reached agreement on a new framework for Gibraltar's relationship within the European Union. I believe that agreement carries an important lesson for this Committee, because the agreement shows that when people sit around a table in good faith, listen to one another and truly look for practical solutions, they can achieve things that once seemed extremely difficult, if not impossible. But there is still one part of Gibraltar's story which remains unresolved, and that is that Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories. And I have to ask, after all these years, what exactly is the United Nations waiting for? The people of Gibraltar have built democratic institutions. We govern ourselves. We take responsibility for our own affairs, and generation after generation of Gibraltarians have made their wishes known. Yet, we remain on a list created more than 70 years ago. Mr. Chairman, that list is supposed to reflect reality, but when reality changes, surely the list must change too. That is why I make the same invitation that I have made many times before: send a visiting mission once and for all. And then ask yourselves whether the description of Gibraltar on that list still reflects the Gibraltar that exists today. I am not asking this Committee to take anyone's side. I am asking it to look, to listen, and above all, to act. There is a generation growing up which should not have to inherit a question that has remained unresolved for decades before them. The recent agreement in relation to Brexit has shown us that progress is possible, so perhaps now is the time for the United Nations to show that they too can progress and complete the UN work that remains unfinished. If there is something more that Gibraltar must do, we deserve to know what it is. And if there is not, then surely the time has come to act. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to stand before this committee year after year repeating the same words, but I or others will continue to do so because the next generation must be able to look back at all of you and say they finally listened, they finally came, and they finally finished the job.

Thank you.

I thank the petitioner. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now turn to the question of Guam. The Lieutenant Governor of Guam, Mr. Joshua Tenorio, wishes to make a statement on behalf of the Governor of Guam, Her Excellency, Lou Leon Guerrero. In accordance with established procedure, I propose that the committee invite the Lieutenant Governor of Guam to make a statement. It is so decided. As such, I invite the Lieutenant Governor of Guam, Mr. Joshua Mr. Norio to take a seat at the committee's table. You have the floor sir for up to 7 minutes.

Half a day. Half a day, your excellent, let's see. Hafadai, Your Excellency, Chairman Sec and distinguished members of the committee. Guam's people are committed to the stewardship of our lands and waters and to the wellbeing and prosperity of our people, especially our youth and elders. We remain committed to a peaceful and informed process of self-determination, consistent with the principles of the charter and the freely expressed will of the people. The path forward, however, must acknowledge the distinct history of the Chamorro people, the indigenous people of Guam, and the historical injustices they have experienced. And the United States has an obligation to address and resolve this history. Guam has long occupied a strategic position in the Pacific, and our people have long borne the consequences of global conflict and geopolitical competition. most profoundly through the tremendous loss of life, displacement, and hardship during the occupation and liberation of Guam in the Second World War. More than eight decades of United States military land use have left an environmental legacy that includes unexploded ordnance, former military disposal sites, and contamination of soil and groundwater. Anderson Air Force Base remains a United States Environmental Protection Agency Superfund site requiring long-term remediation, while PFAS and other persistent contaminants present additional concerns. An active investigation is also determining the cause of dieldrin contamination affecting water wells serving northern residents near the base. These issues are especially significant on a small island with finite land and freshwater resources. Much of the United States military presence in Northern Guam sits above the Northern Guam Lens Aquifer, our principal source of drinking water. In 2021, United Nations Special Rapporteurs warned of a direct risk to the health of local populations and expressed concern about Guam's principal source of drinking water. The draft resolution similarly recalls concerns that the military buildup could cause additional and irreparable harm to Guam's land and marine environments. At the same time, we recognize that the United States presence has long been an important source of economic stability for Guam. Expenditures by our administering power support employment, household incomes, local businesses, and infrastructure, while the current defense buildup is generating significant economic activity and expanding Guam's tax base. Yet, this growth has also placed significant pressure on housing costs and affordability for Guam's working families. Over the past decade, more than 8.7 billion U.S. dollars in military construction and modernization associated with the U.S. Marine Corps relocation and related defense infrastructure has been managed on Guam, financed by the United States Congress and contributions from the government of Japan. Additional investment is underway for missile defense and other military infrastructure. These contributions are substantial, but Guam should not have to choose between economic opportunity, security, and environmental protection. Sustainable development requires that these objectives advance together. As investment in Guam's strategic role grows, so too should investment in environmental remediation, safe drinking water, resilient civilian infrastructure, and the long-term health of our community. Significant legacy remediation remains unfinished and should be prioritized by the United States together with policies that enable greater economic self-sufficiency. Too often, decisions in Washington affecting Guam are made without our input. Legislation is being proposed in the United States Congress to establish a regular formal process of consultation between the government of Guam and the United States. Such a process can help ensure that Guam's views are considered when decisions affecting our land, economy, and people are made. That principle must extend to our ocean. The United States is advancing a process to lease areas of the outer continental shelf near the Mariana Islands for exploration and possible future development of critical mineral resources. While the current action does not itself authorize commercial mining, it represents a significant step toward potential mineral development in our region's deep ocean. Guam's leadership is united and has called for a halt to the advancement of seabed mineral leasing in the waters surrounding the Marianas until adequate scientific study, environmental review, and meaningful consultation with our people have occurred. This is also why Guam must make greater use of the international forums available to us on oceans, climate, and sustainable development. We have seen what greater participation can accomplish. In 2024, Guam was accepted as an associate member of the Pacific Islands Forum, and in 2025, we took our place for the first time in that capacity alongside the leaders of our Pacific region to address sea level rise and other shared regional concerns. Guam is ready to make fuller use of these opportunities to take our rightful place in regional and international discussions, contribute our experience, and work with others on the challenges and opportunities we share. The draft resolution on Guam gives this committee an opportunity to affirm the importance of our environment, our economy, and our participation. We ask you to support its calls for sustainable and equitable development, environmental restoration and protection, and continued attention to the impacts of militarization. We renew our request for a visiting mission to assess the situation in Guam. Our people seek a future in which our economy can grow, our lands and waters are protected, our indigenous heritage is respected, and Guam can participate meaningfully in discussions and decisions that affect our island. That future depends upon responsible stewardship, genuine partnership, recognition of our history, and above all, respect for the right of the people of Guam to shape their own future. and thank you.

I thank the Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey. Does any member wish to put questions to the Lieutenant Governor or comment on his statement? No delegation is asking for the floor. We shall now hear the petitioners wishing to make statements on the question of Guam. I invite the first petitioner to take the floor, Mr. Bryan Aguan.

Half a day, Mr. Chairman, and all the members of the committee. I'm indigenous Chamorro son of Guam. I reflect on the numerous Chamorro petitioners and our allies who have paved the way for this opportunity to petition on behalf of Guam. Their legacy continues on as an integral part of our quest towards genuine act of self-determination and decolonization. Guam's administering power, the United States is celebrating 250 years as an independent country, allowing some principles of freedom, democracy, and equality. Although notable, the United States continues to subjugate Guam and her people to an inferior inequitable non-self-governing status, depriving Guam of the very principles it espouses. At the center of Guam's quest for decolonization are the indigenous Chamorro people and the exercise of their fundamental human right of self-determination. The United States has chosen to be a non-cooperative actor in the facilitation of Chamorro self-determination. The United States is seemingly content with only allowing Guam a limited form of self-government and our people conditional United States citizenship. This is unquestionably short of a full measure of self-government. is in the best interest of the United States to maintain the political status quo for Guam, is in their best interest to maintain control over Guam's affairs without our people's free, prior, and informed consent, is in their best interest to perpetuate systemic inequities that has displaced tens of thousands of Chamorros, resulting in the Chamorro people becoming a minority in their own homeland. The governor of Guam established the framework for the Chamorro people to vote in a political-sized puppet site. The United States asserted that a vote led primarily by the Chamorro people, excuse me, violated the United States Constitution and the voting rights of American citizens. This is a blatant violation of the United States obligation through the UN Charter to take due account of political aspirations of the peoples and to assist them the progressive development of their free political institutions according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples. The United States has willfully misrepresented the peoples in Guam's case through the weaponization of universal suffrage as a method to erase Chamorro people. The exercise of Chamorro self-determination should not be defined by the United States. It has been recognized indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment as a collective or as individuals of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and International Human Rights Law. Self-determination is an inherent human right that the Chamorro people must exercise with dignity and without burden to begin the actual of a full measure of self-government for Guam. I formally request for a United Nations visiting mission to Guam. A visiting mission will be beneficial for members of the answer community to attain an informed perspective, the United States irresponsibility and their obligation to resolve Guam's colonial plight. I formally request the members of this committee assist Guam in elevating the issue of Chamorro self-determination through appropriate human rights institutions. This will serve as a necessary reckoning for the United States to pay restitution to the Chamorro people, who have endured colonization for over 500 years. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the petitioner for that statement. I now give the floor to Pim Limtiaco.

My name is Pinlim Tiako, and I am a native Chamorro from Guam. I would like to thank and acknowledge all distinguished members of the fourth committee for having me here. There is possibly one word to summarize our current situation, sick. We are sick of the continued colonization of our lands and waters by the US. We have been getting sick from the continued contamination and damage of our water sources. And we find the situation sick that we have been ignored in the deep sea mining discussions by the US federal government. The US already occupies one third of our island for its military base operations. And once again, our people have yet to receive the land back from the federal government since World War II. These bases have knowingly contaminated our primary water sources for decades with dieldrin, a banned insecticide that is known to cause cancer and reproductive issues. Residents who live closely to them continue to suffer from chronic and fatal health conditions caused by this environmental exposure. The deep-sea mining situation continues to be a threat to our livelihood, Indigenous practice, and marine biodiversity across the Pacific. The U.S. plans to lease over 67 million acres of seafloor around our island to mining companies. Even after passing local legislation and holding peaceful gatherings against these measures, the U.S. federal government has still decided to hold the lease sale by December 16, 2026. The Trump administration heeded the will of our people on this issue. Instead, it expedited the timeline and expanded the area it was going to lease. Our current political status as a territory continues to prevent us from having any autonomy to protect our environment. This is already my fifth time here for the past nine years, and I once again urge the Fourth Committee to take action to conduct a visiting mission to Guam to study the effects, and more importantly, to fulfill its goal to eradicate colonialism. I would also like to empower the Fourth Committee to summon the International Seabed Authority to implement its power to organize, regulate, and control all mineral resource-related activities for the benefit of humankind as a whole. If your children were sick, would you ignore their cries for help? Would you take away their resources to stay alive? Would you knowingly poison them until it is too late to intervene? Does hearing what our people have been going through for centuries make you sick? Thank you for your time.

I thank the petitioner.

I now give the floor to Maya Fino.

My name is Maya Fino from the Center for Constitutional Rights, and I'm reading testimony by Jonita Kerr and Monica Flores of Putehigwa Han in Guam who could not attend today's meeting. Members of Putehigwa Han traveled almost 8,000 miles and around 24 hours to Washington, DC this past Saturday to come to the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, to hold the Air Force accountable to following the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which has a heightened importance in Guam, where the US military occupies more than a quarter of the island, while the people of Guam lack political power as a US military colony. The NEPA review is often the only structured opportunity for the community in Guam to participate in the federal decision-making process for federal projects and proposals that have lasting impacts on health, well-being, environment, and the cultural heritage of the indigenous Chamorro people. This is not merely a bureaucratic process, but the primary way for the federal government to be held accountable and listen to the people who are forced to live with the consequences of their decisions and actions. Simultaneously, decisions about deep sea mining are being made without consent and again without political or social equity. Harming ocean ecosystems ultimately impacts community well-being, climate resilience, cultural survival, food security, spiritual practices, and is an attack on the sovereignty of all Indigenous Pacific communities. According to the Trump administration, who is fast tracking deep sea mining in advance of international law, the targeting of the minerals is for the economic prosperity and security of the United States at the cost of the Marianas archipelago. The people of Guam understand that there is no public benefit to the permanent and irreversible destruction of the ocean ecosystem, which they have been a part of for almost 4,000 years. Meanwhile, these minerals will be used to greatly enrich those who have no regard for the health and welfare of the people of the Marianas, and to develop weapons and AI tech for never-ending cycles of war and war games. Protehi Guahan humbly implores an international intervention and alleviation to non-stop war games that exacerbate threats to climate resilience, the colonial resource grabbing through deep sea mining, and an end to military destruction and aggression in our lands and waters. Thank you, Nsizu Usmasi.

I thank the petitioner. I give the floor. I give the floor to Melvin Benny One Pat. Bonjour.

After your Excellency, Chairman, and honorable members of the committee. My name is Melvin Wampat Borja. I'm the executive director of the Commission on Decolonization. In 2016, the UN General Assembly's resolution on the question of Guam has recognized that the incessant militarization of Guam is the most acute threat to the legitimate exercise of our island's decolonization. A decade later, the continued and growing presence of the United States military on Guam is indeed an impediment to the actualization of the political desires of the native inhabitants of Guam and the indigenous the Chamorro people. It is an understatement to say that the United States national security interests take precedence over the social, political, and economic aspirations of our people. The emphasis placed on Guam's strategic location in the Pacific region and its inequitable political status have endowed our administering power with unilateral control and sovereignty to create a situation in which their security and defense priorities come at the expense of local interests and concerns. The people of Guam, most especially the indigenous Chamorro people, have borne undue costs to our culture, language, environment, and economy, all while living in an inequitable political status that robs us of the ability to consent to military activities that cause genuine harm and create a perception of the island to be both a target and asset to external powers. Nearly one-third of Guam's landmass has been used by our administering power for military purposes, taken predominantly from indigenous Chamorro families. There is a longstanding request to our administering power to continue to transfer land to the original land owners of the territory to continue to recognize and respect the political rights and the cultural and ethnic identity of the CHamoru people of Guam. Though we welcome these efforts, it is of particular concern that our administering power is now seeking the acquisition of 2,400 housing units outside of military controlled properties. These units will accommodate an estimated 10,000 new military personnel and their dependents. This demand is well above our island's capacity and places our people in direct competition for housing, creating another factor that will cause the further displacement of the Chamorro people from their homeland. Guam is more than just a strategic location. It is an island that has been stewarded by a 4,000 year old civilization that predated colonialism by our administering power. We request a United Nations visiting mission as an actionable and reasonable step which must be taken to provide an updated understanding of the situation in Guam. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.

I thank the petitioner. I now give the floor to Harmony Dorilisa Palengtas.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honorable members of the fourth committee. As a non-self-governing territory, the people of Guam shoulder an environmental burden that directly harms our overall wellbeing and capacities for advancement. A 2021 United Nations Special Rapporteur report expressed concern on the association between military escalation and the risk of contamination. Today, we are living with the impacts they first saw. In September, work by an independent nonprofit media organization uncovered historical records unsafe levels of dieldrin on Anderson Air Force Base. In connection, families from the village of Yigo are facing the reality of decades-long exposure to a toxic pesticide through the contamination of finite freshwater resources. Past and present activities conducted by the United States military in the pursuit of their national security interest have come at the cost of protecting and preserving the lands, airs, and waters of Guam. This committee should be concerned that our administering power has claimed an exclusive right to use and extract resources from the island and surrounding waters without consent from the community, most especially the indigenous Tamoro people. As recognized by the United Nations, indigenous peoples have the right to redress for the lands, territories, and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used, or damaged without their free, prior, and informed consent. The exploitive and extractive nature of the United States military must be altered to undo harms and ensure future actions respect the rights of the Chamorro people. If the United States is to uphold their obligation to aid in the development of self-government and actualization of the political aspirations of the native inhabitants of Guam, inviting genuine partnership to address environmental harms is a step in the right direction. Consulting local counterparts, asking not only for comments but consent from the people are ways in which you involve the community that is connected to these issues. In addition, providing funding to prevent and mitigate environmental degradation due to military activities is crucial. If billions of dollars can be placed into building a military installation, then funding should exist to ensure that toxic chemicals do not pollute the largest freshwater resource in the island. I also ask for the committee's support in these efforts. A United Nations visiting mission would provide for an updated understanding of the situation in Guam and the obstacles to achieving full self-government. Earnest collaboration with our administering power and the international community can change the trajectory of Guam's future. I invite you to be part of that journey.

I thank the petitioner. Ladies and gentlemen, we have heard the last petitioner on the question of Guam. And we have reached the end of our allotted time. I would like to thank the petitioners for their statements, patience for coming here. I thank the interpreters for having given us additional time. We will start with New Caledonia at our next meeting of ours tomorrow on Tuesday at 3 p.m. in this very room. We stand adjourned.