The next reference is U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960 entitled "Principles Which Should Guide Members in Determining Whether or not an Obligation Exists to Transmit the Information, Called for in Article 73 (e) of the Charter of the United Nations." In that document, we find in the first principle that the administering power is obligated to continue to transmit information to the United Nations for territories which have not yet attained a full measure of self-government. Principle VI elaborates:

A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have
reached a full measure of self-government by:

(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
(b) Free association with an independent State; or
(c) Integration with an independent State.

Of particular interest to us in view of the matter before this committee, i.e., the Guam Commonwealth Act, is Principle VII which defines free association.

(a) Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. It should be one which respects the individuality and the cultural characteristics of the territory and its peoples, and retains for the peoples of the territory which is associated with an independent State the freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional processes.

(b) The associated territory should have the right to determine its internal constitution without outside interference, in accordance with due constitutional processes and the freely expressed wishes of the people. This does not preclude consultations as appropriate or necessary under the terms of the free association agreed upon.

5

In tandem with GA Resolution 1541, one must also read that resolution which the United Nations General Assembly adopted one day before, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, GA Res 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960. That resolution requires the following:

Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom. (Paragraph 5.)

Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. (Paragraph 6.)

Thus we have the general framework under which the specific Guam Commonwealth Act and the general outcry of self-determination of the people of Guam must be measured.

How has the United States' conduct with regards to Guam measured up to this framework? How does the present Guam Commonwealth Act fit within this international framework? How will any future action taken by the United States in relation to Guam comport with the international standards of decolonization?

In the oral presentation to be made, we wish to address two specific areas of concern which immediately come to our

attention, in which we believe the United States have failed to meet the requirements of this framework of decolonizations. The first is the attempt by the

administering power to manipulate the "self" to its own benefit and the second is the limitation imposed by the administering power of the range of "determination" among which can be chosen by the people of Guam.

Unfortunately, time constraints prevent the elaboration of these points in a written position paper 24 hours in advance of the upcoming hearing and so will have to await our anticipated oral presentation.

Mr. DE LUGO. Now, our next witness will be Mr. Antonio T. Artero.

Mr. ARTERO. Mr. Chairman, before I start, I see the green light is on but I would like to advise the Chair that my oral presentation is going to be slightly different from the written report submitted.

Mr. DE LUGO. That is quite all right. It will be on the record, too, so go ahead.

Mr. ARTERO. Honorable Ron de Lugo, honorable members of the committee and staff, greetings and warm hafa adai.

My name is Antonio Torres Artero, born on Guam, and my father is a recipient of a Congressional Medal of Freedom. As a concerned citizen, I have been privileged and have served proudly for 21 years in our Submarine Force, protecting our freedom and world peace.

As a realtor now, I offer my testimony in support of the passage of Guam's Commonwealth Act bill, H.R. 98. World history shows that Guam and its people have been more than accommodating to the various countries of the world but the people from the various countries, including the U.S., have demonstrated their support over us and exercised total dominance and control over us.

As a people we have lost our rights even to our private property. We are not questioning the United States' right to own, operate and maintain property on Guam. What we are questioning is the manner in which the properties were taken and the misuse of the properties taken.

Private property rights is deserving the protection of the military, but the military does not have the right to oppressive property takeovers.

The military base on Guam can exist on Guam without Guam having to be the military bastion. Forty-five years after World War II, the so-called land claims compensation that Congress authorized in 1977 had turned into a fiasco of a settlement proposal wherein the people involved were pitted against each other in seeking their fair share of a forced settlement and yet, still, another unjust amount.

The mishandling of the claims have blown up the class action suit into three separate options due largely to the manipulation of facts to cover up the wrongdoing of the government. Or could it be that it is a deliberate application of it the divide and conquer routine? At any rate, it clearly shows the unwillingness of the United States to render justice for us on Guam.

You can count on one hand the number of times Judge Peckam, or his replacement, came to Guam. There are many property owners who have not been compensated even to this day.

Although Guam had been flying the American flag for 91 years and the economic condition today is good for the privileged few, the situation we are in is in one word "vulnerable.' It is vulnerable primarily because America's stewardship of Guam centers on total self-interest, neglect of property rights, and clearly a violation of the Constitution.

We have been given our U.S. citizenship for 38 years now and have conducted ourselves in accordance with the United States Constitution. However, unconstitutional practices have been a very consistent U.S. policy on Guam. Our concerned voice about oppres

sion for the past 45 years is treated by America like the sound created by wood eating termites in one's home. You don't hear it until it is too late.

This commonwealth bill for Guam is making it possible for our puny voices emanating from dinky Guam 10,000 miles from Washington, D.C. to be heard for the first time. This commonwealth bill for Guam, if passed, will prevent a crashing blow to America's reputation as a world leader in democracy, peace, and freedom.

Mr. Chairman, the private property rights problem on Guam must be solved first and soon, because they stand in the way of the island-wide comprehensive economic development plan. If that cannot be done, then we are all wasting our time, because Congress cannot legislate greed.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment that I question why this hearing has to be conducted in Hawaii instead of on Guam. The commonwealth bill hearings must be on Guam because it concerns the people of Guam, and their participation is impaired by plane fares and hotel fees.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that we can only hope that the removal of the Berlin Wall will serve as an eye opener for America to acknowledge that the time is overdue for America to practice that which it preaches-democracy.

Democracy is freedom. America must allow total and unconditional political, civil and human rights to the people of Guam who are shackled with military oppression since World War II bypassing the Guam Commonwealth Act bill, return the lands that can be returned to the rightful owners, and justly compensate the landowners who are eminently qualified for just compensation.

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you very much, Mr. Artero.

Mr. ARTERO. Thank you, sir.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Artero follows:]