The Cabindan National Movement (MNC) is managing to embody the legitimate and peaceful struggle of the people of Cabinda for national liberation from Angola. Hence, the Movement is acting as a partial subject of international law. The juridical basis of the relevance of MNC, as partial subject of international law, has to be found in the self-determination of peoples which is one of the dear purposes of the United Nations. It is worthwhile remembering that a Cabindan petitioner, in this instance Mr. Luís Ranque Franque, had been invited and heard at the 4th Committee of the UN GA in November 1962 as representative of the Movement for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (MLEC).
As it is unmistakable that MNC draws its legitimacy and relevance from the self-determination of peoples which is one of the purposes of the United Nations, it is similarly clear that the author of this very work, in this instance Bartolomeu Capita (Mr.), is entitled to refer to UNHCR, to the United Nations in general, and to any other «actor of the international relations» as Chairman of the Cabindan National Movement.
MNC was founded in Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of the Congo) by stateless refugees from Cabinda in 1989. Its main founding principle is to be the Cabinda liberation movement that tries to combine legitimacy, integrity, energy and the genuine desire to pursue its declared aims. MNC is thus committed to contributing to the fulfillment of international order of justice and peace. Besides, it accepts in advance the obligations of peaceful settlement provided in the Charter of the United Nations.
Since the author of this work and the whole stateless people of Cabinda (refugees/non-refugees) still have a «continued need for international protection» under the terms of UNHCR’s mandate; and bearing in mind UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusions which urge UNHCR to pursue its activities on behalf of stateless persons, as part of its statutory function of providing international protection and of seeking equitable and long-lasting solutions, it’s opportune and fair that the Cabinda people’s statelessness be referred to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which, at present, is faithfully represented by H.E. Mr. António Guterres.
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 2
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Rue de Montbrillant, 94
CH-1202 Genève
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 5
Relevance of the work 5
Legitimacy of the work 5
Object and purpose of the work 5
Determining factors of the work 6
THE TERMS REFUGEE AND STATELESS PERSON 7
Definition of the term refugee 7
Definition of the term mandate refugee 7
Definition of the term stateless person 8
IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUTHOR’S STATELESSNESS 8
Absence of the legal identity 8
Nationality of the country of birth 8
Angolan nationality and its political expansion 10
Author’s statelessness as a result of the Portuguese decolonization 10
A scholar’s evaluation of the Portuguese decolonization 11
Author’s remarks about the Portuguese decolonization 12
Shared responsibilities for the Portuguese bad decolonization 13
Author’s deprivation of nationality 14
CABINDA PEOPLE’S STATELESSNESS 14
State succession and Cabinda’s statelessness 14
Unquestionable denial of justice 15
Cabinda’s legal status as a protected State 16
SOLVING THE CABINDA PEOPLE’S STATELESSNESS 17
International protection and humanitarian assistance 17
Contempt for the right solution to Cabinda people’s statelessness 19
The just solution to Cabinda people’s statelessness 21
Responsibilities of States concerned 22
CONCLUSION 24
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 4
I. INTRODUCTION
i. Relevance of the work
Ever since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, growing xenophobia, restrictive administrative and legal measures are sharply reducing the number of asylum applications in most Western countries and many others across the globe. Such policies have already led to the general erosion of the core principles of international refugee law, in particular the principle of non-refoulement, which ensures that nobody is sent back to persecution. Furthermore, distinction between asylum seekers and refugees on the one hand, and illegal migrants on the other is no longer made in the name of their increasingly restrictive asylum practices. These practices comprehend the frequent detention of asylum seekers, encampment and restrictions on freedom of movement. The obvious result of these practices is that the rights of the asylum seekers and refugees are increasingly violated on account of the indiscriminate implementation of measures aimed at combating pretended illegal migration.
Concerned about these developments around the world, UNHCR has in recent years launched two momentous initiatives – the Global Consultations on International Protection and Convention Plus – to address global refugee problems. Both the Global Consultations process and the Convention Plus initiative were based on the assumption that the policy responses of states and international organizations would be effective if they arose from dialogue between all the relevant actors. These include developed and developing states, international agencies, the refugee community and NGOs, all of whom play a role in protecting and assisting refugees.
The reaffirmation of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention by states, the clarification of the core aspects of international refugee law, and the recognition that for a solution to the refugee problem to succeed it must be reached through dialogue between all the stakeholders, in particular developed and developing countries, on the basis of shared interests, appear to be the most tangible achievements of Global Consultations. This, considering that absolute pulverization of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention is the hidden and ultimate aim of all initiatives, e.g. “extraterritorial processing of refugees” and “protection in the region of origin”, which seek to restrict the number of asylum seekers and refugees entering industrilized countries by establishing a deterrent asylum regime.
ii. Legitimacy of the work
Since both the Global Consultations process and the Covention Plus initiative recognized that for a solution to the refugee problem to succeed it must be reached through dialogue between all the stakeholders, the present work draws its legitimacy from the premise that its author happens to be representative of a refugee community, that is one of the relevant actors, and whose legal identity is the problem that requires forthwith a fair solution. The author of the present work belongs to an African refugee community, which is in fact a component of the people whose native country is Cabinda, and whose prevailing statelessness is the core subject of this very work.
iii. Object and purpose of the work
The Cabinda refugee community appears to be one of the stakeholders that must be involved in a dialogue for a solution to refugee problem to succeed. Pursuant to this indisputable fact, the author contends that for the Cabinda refugee community’s involvement to yield positive results it must be based upon both the awareness and acceptance of its individual responsibility. Therefore, the main purpose of the work is to establish the author’s personal statelessness, hence the one of the whole
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 5
Cabinda people to which he belongs. Whereas the work’s object is the statelessness of the Cabinda refugee community, the work’s purpose is to collect information and shed light over the facts that are relevant enough to help demonstrate the prevailing statelessness of the peaceful people whose native country is Cabinda, and thus pave the way for an effective protection of stateless individuals from Cabinda within the framework of international human rights law, and the way for a quick and fair eradication of the Cabinda people’s situation of statelessness in compliance with the core values articulated in the tools of the international law. While the author’s statelessness appears to be an authentic specimen, the establishment of his statelessness here comes into view as a mechanism by means of which the Cabinda people’s statelessness becomes totally uncovered and, henceforth, legally comprehensible.
The work is thus the author’s line of argument regarding his own legal status and, accordingly, the legal identity of the entire people to which he belongs, and purposely designed to respectfully draw the charitable attention of His Excellency Mr. António Guterres, the incumbent United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), to the prevailing statelessness of refugees and related people whose native country is Cabinda. This, bearing in mind the provisions of the UN General Assembly resolution 428 (V) of 14 December 1950, relating to the Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its associated Protocol of 1967; the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness; the UN General Assembly resolution 31/36 of 30 November 1976; and the UNHCR’s Executive Committee Conclusion No. 106 (V) – 2006 on Identification, Prevention and Reduction of Statelessness and Protection of Stateless Persons. The work is also designed to be put at the disposal of any person whose native country is Cabinda so as to provide him/her with accurate information regarding access to his/her legal identity.
iv. Determining factors of the work
UNHCR would never have launched major initiatives such as «Global Consultations on International Protection» and «Convention Plus» if there have never been upsetting developments with regard to refugees and asylum applicants requiring an appropriate response. Though, the initiatives coming from Western states to address global refugee problems are essentially a response to the concerns of their citizens that they have become a soft touch for bogus asylum seekers. The said initiatives, aimed at minimizing the number of refugees entering industrialized countries by establishing a disincentive asylum policy, include “extraterritorial processing of refugees” and “protection in the region of origin”. Since these upsetting developments are already leading to the general erosion of the core principles of international refugee law, in particular the principle of non-refoulement, there is a pressing need that refugee communities side with UNHCR in the quest for their effective legal and social protection.
The fact that the substantive achievements of «Convention Plus» in terms of new commitments by states to responsibility-sharing and thus to refugee protection have been very few, comes here into view as one of the distressing developments with respect to refugees and asylum applicants. Apart from that, and despite UNHCR claims that any proposed mechanism for responsibility-sharing must, if it is to yield favorable results, be a dialog and a global model, both the dialog and global dimensions are neglected when a regional solution to refugees is advised as the model to respond to the global refugee problem. Since the recommended regional approach proves to treat refugees as mere commodities, and proves to ignore its social, cultural, political, and environmental costs or implications, every refugee community is requested to stand up for its forensic status and the social safety of each of its members wherever they are.
As the initiatives coming from Western states to address global refugee problems entail a very clear intention to shirk responsibility, the contribution of every refugee group likely to shed light over the ethical, legal and political responsibilities of all parties involved proves to be indispensable. Both the Agenda for Protection and UNHCR’s Executive Committee Conclusion on International Cooperation and Burden and Responsibility-Sharing in Mass Influx Situations No. 100 (LV) – 2004 recognize the need for global responsibility-sharing arrangements. Here, more than elsewhere, dialog dimension
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 6
Is fundamental. It is fundamental for it requires that responsibility-sharing be defined in accordance with criteria that are acceptable from the perspective of all the stakeholders. Consequently, refugee communities have to do our best in order that international responsibility be shared both in hosting the displaced (refugees & stateless persons) and providing the funds required to offer them durable solutions. The idea of refugee-resources exchange (where rich states compensate poor states for hosting refugees) is indeed ethically problematic. Nevertheless, it shows its authors’ consciousness with respect to their international responsibility and proves thus to be the point from which refugee communities can help introduce the so much needed changes in North-South responsibility-sharing.
II. THE TERMS REFUGEE & STATELESS PERSON
At present, the author is both a mandate refugee, ever since the 1980s, and a refugee under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees since the 1990s. Though, the author’s endeavor here is to prove his statelessness. In other words, to demonstrate that he is a person to whom the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons applies since the year 1975. The drafters of the 1954 Convention were themselves aware that difficulties might arise in establishing proof. Thus, before we move forward, we are required to have in hand the definition of the terms “refugee”, “mandate refugee” and “stateless person” as used at the international level.
i. Definition of the term «refugee»
Article 1 A (2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention defines refugee for the purpose of the Convention as a “person who, as a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”. It is similarly defined in paragraph 6 A. (ii) of the UNHCR’s Statute. «Refugee status» or «Convention status» are technical expressions that pertain to persons recognized by the host country as refugees under the «Geneva Convention», that is the very Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967.
ii. Definition of the term «mandate refugee»
Persons who meet the eligibility criteria of the UNHCR Statute and the 1951 Convention or who fall within UNHCR’s broader protection mandate as established by subsequent General Assembly and ECOSOC resolutions, qualify for the protection of the UN (United Nations) provided by the High Commissioner, regardless of whether they are in a country that is party to the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol (or, if applicable, a regional instrument) or whether they have been recognized by the host country as refugees under either of these instruments. «Mandate refugee» is, therefore, a refugee that fall within the mandate of UNHCR whether recognized as refugee by a State or by UNHCR. Pursuant to UNHCR/BOM/49/81, they belong to a category of persons to whom the «High Commissioner» is competent to extend international protection. «Mandate status» refers to refugees who, being within the «High Commissioner’s mandate», are called «mandate refugees».
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 7
iii. Definition of the term «stateless person»
As regards the definition of “stateless person”, reference is made to Article 1 (1) of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, which defines the term “stateless person” as a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.
Nationality is a legal bond between a State and an individual, and statelessness refers to the condition of an individual who is not considered as a national by any State under its domestic law. Although stateless people may sometimes also be refugees, the two categories are distinct and both groups are of concern to UNHCR.
III. IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUTHOR’S STATELESSNESS
i. Absence of the legal identity
In the light of the 1954 Convention’s definition of the term “stateless person”, nationality refers to a legal bond between a person and a State. In this acceptation, nationality is used as a synonym to the term citizenship. Thus, for the reason that the author’s native country is Cabinda, and that the registration of his birth in 1962 as well as the issuance of his birth certificate occurred under the operation of the law of the State of Portugal, the author’s prevailing identity (“Angolan refugee”) is nothing but a political remedy to the absence of his legal identity, that is his legal nationality.
The certificate issued by UNHCR Regional Office for Central Africa on 29th August 1984 to attest that the author is a “mandate refugee”, omits the author’s legal identity since it regards him as an “Angolan national”, instead of “Cabindan national”. Subsequently, pursuant to the above mentioned certificate, the French State recognized the author as an “Angolan national” qualifying for the status defined by the Geneva Convention. In any case, it is required that light be shed over the nationality of the author’s country of birth so as to understand its peculiarity, and that light be also shed over the concept “Angolan nationality” and its “political expansion to Cabinda” in order to apprehend the fact that the author is arbitrarily deprived of his legal nationality.
References:
1- UNHCR’s Executive Committee Conclusion No. 106 (LVII) – 2006 on Identification, Prevention and Reduction of Statelessness and Protection of Stateless Persons, recalls the right of every person to a nationality and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of one’s nationality as enunciated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and referenced in human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and the Convention on the Rights of the Child;
2- The Conclusion [No. 106 (LVII) – 2006] notes in addition that the issue of statelessness is already under consideration by the United Nations General Assembly within the broad issue of State succession; – Resolution 55/153 of 2000, Nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of States.
ii. Nationality of the country of birth
The author’s native country is “Cabinda”. His nationality at birth is the “Portuguese nationality”. Up to the year 1975, the Portuguese nationality was given to people whose native country is Cabinda, in accordance with the «1885 Protectorate Treaty between Cabinda and Portugal». This famous treaty, widely known as “Treaty of Simulambuco”, received attention and ratification at the Berlin Congo Conference that took place from 15th Nov. 1884 to 26th Feb. 1885 in “Reichskanzlerpalais”
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 8
(Wilhelmstraße 77 / Berlin). The Berlin Congo Conference was held by “Reichskanzlers Bismarck”, and its agenda was: «the sharing Africa out among colonial powers». The Berlin Congo Conference had the following protagonists: Germany, Great Britain, United States of America, Portugal, France, Russia, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Austrian-Hungary, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain and Turkey.
Due to the invasion of Cabinda in March 1883 by captain Cordier, lieutenant commander of the French war-vessel Sagittaire, invasion that had resulted in the irrevocable loss of the huge and rich Cabindan territory called “Point-Noire”, and which belongs to the former French region of Middle Congo nowadays, and due also to the fact that the French were threatening to occupy much of the “Congo” (Cabinda), according to the British newspaper “Economist” of 18th Oct. 1884, the Princes and Governors of Cabinda decided to negotiate with the Portuguese Crown a protectorate treaty aimed at preventing new French invasions and ensuing occupations. In fact, from 1885 up to 1975, the Treaty of Simulambuco has secured Cabinda’s territorial integrity and effectively ended three centuries’ violent wars among the European imperialistic countries aimed at controlling Cabinda.
In the course of the year 1919 the “League of Nations” had adopted a map based on the borders existing 1917 but had also drawn up a list of the countries under colonial oppression to be freed. Cabinda (Portuguese protectorate since 1885) was number 27 on the list, and Angola (Portuguese colony since 1575) was number 28. This list would later be confirmed by the United Nations at its inauguration in 1945, and this would in addition permit Mr. Luís Ranque Franque, the president of the Movement for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (MLEC) to be heard during the 4th Committee of the 17th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in November 1962.
Taking into account the clear provisions of the Portuguese imperial Constitutions, especially the one of 1933 in force until the year 1976, the Portuguese nationality of the author at birth entails the Cabindan nationality, that is the author’s legal identity.
Cabinda, African territory on the Atlantic coast, between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Congo-Brazzaville, is the national State that had friendly signed the 1885 Protectorate Treaty with another national State, in this instance Portugal. Even though the Portuguese nationality was given to Cabindan natives while the country was under the Portuguese protection, Portugal had been fair in calling attention to Cabinda’s legal and political sovereignties through its imperial Constitutions.
Both the “Cabindan state” and the “Cabindan nationality” enshrined in the Portuguese Constitution of 1933-1976, happen to be the key factors that have permitted the pronouncement of a Cabindan representative at the United Nations in 1962, in pursuance of paragraph 5 of the United Nations General Assembly resolution 1699 (XVI) of 19 Dec 1961. In reply to the Cabindan petitioner the UN General Assembly has adopted resolution 1807 (XVII) of 14th December 1962. The two key factors have in addition permitted the Organization of African Unity (OAU), ever since its genesis in 1963, to fairly advocate the self-determination and independence of Cabinda by ranking the very Cabinda
as the 39th State in its list of the African countries, with the then Portuguese colony called Angola as the 35th.
References:
1- Mr. Amos J. Peaslee’s “Constitutions of Nations”, a compilation that had been put at the United Nations’ disposal in the early 1960s. In this inestimable work, the Political Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, supplied together with 1959 amendments by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in December 1965, does not mix up the political status of Cabinda with the one of Angola, nor with the one of Mozambique, Timor, Guinea Bissau, and Cape Verde Islands;
2- The 1963 OAU (Organization of African Unity) list of the African Countries:
• Key / 1- Morocco, 2- Algeria, 3- Tunisia, 4- Libya, 5- Arabian United Republic, 6- Sahara, 7- Mauritania, 8- Mali, 9- Niger,
10- Chad, 11- Sudan, 12- Ethiopia, 13- Djibouti, 14- Somalia, 15- Canary Islands, 16- Senegal, 17- Gambia, 18- Guinea-Bissau, 19- Guinea, 20- Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), 21- Nigeria, 22- Cameroon, 23- Central African Republic, 24- Congo-Kinshasa, 25- Uganda, 26- Kenya, 27- Rwanda, 28- Burundi, 29- Tanzania, 30- Zambia, 31- Malawi, 32- Mozambique, 33-Zimbabwe, 34- Botswana, 35- Angola, 36- Congo-Brazzaville, 37- Gabon, 38- Rio Muni (Equatorial Guinea), 39- Cabinda, 40- Dahomey (Benin), 41- Togo, 42- Ghana, 43- Côte d’Ivoire, 44- Liberia, 45- Sierra Leone, 46- Namibia, 47- Swaziland, 48- Lesotho, 49- Azânia (South Africa), 50- Madagascar;
3- Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 15, paragraph 1: Everyone has the right to a nationality; paragraph 2: No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality;
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 9
4- Doc. of the 17th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations – 4th Committee A/C. 4/SR 1391- 20 Nov. 1962; and: (17th Session, Annexes, Agenda item 54, documents A/5160 and add. 1 and 2);
5- Histoire des Relations Internationales, Tome VI, 2eme Partie – De 1871 à 1914, by Pierre Renouvin, Paris-Hachette, 1953, pp. 91, 284, 288-290;
6- UNHCR’s Executive Committee, No. 106 (LVII) – 2006 – Conclusion on Identification, Prevention and Reduction of Statelessness and Protection of Stateless Persons;
(a) Urges UNHCR, in cooperation with governments, other United Nations and international as well as relevant regional and non-governmental organizations, to strengthen its efforts in this domain by pursuing targeted activities to support the identification, prevention and reduction of statelessness and to further the protection of stateless persons;
(c) Encourages UNHCR to undertake and share research, particularly in the regions where little research is done on statelessness, with relevant academic institutions or experts, and governments, so as to promote increased understanding of the nature and scope of the problem of statelessness, to identify stateless populations and to understand reasons which led to statelessness, all of which would serve as a basis for crafting strategies to addressing the problem;
(e) Encourages UNHCR to include in its biennial reports on activities related to stateless persons to the Executive Committee, statistics provided by States and research undertaken by academic institutions and experts, civil society and its own staff in the field on the magnitude of statelessness;
(t) Requests UNHCR to actively disseminate information and, where appropriate, train government counterparts on appropriate mechanisms for identifying, recording, and granting a status to stateless persons;
iii. Angolan nationality and its political expansion
The very Portuguese imperial Constitution of 1933-1976, which had been put at the disposal of the United Nations through Mr. Amos J. Peaslee’s “Constitutions of Nations” in the early sixties and which, as mentioned above, entails the Cabindan nationality and its related State, implies similarly both the “Angolan nationality” and its associated State. Since the political expansion of the Angolan nationality to Cabinda results from the trickeries of the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola) and its European allies during the Portuguese decolonization in 1974/75, to look over the development of the Portuguese decolonization does make sense.
iv. Author’s statelessness as a result of the Portuguese decolonization
It was only after the outbreak of the “Revolução dos Cravos” (Carnation Revolution), which started on 25th April 1974 in Lisbon, Portugal, that Portugal began the decolonization of the territories in other continents over which she exercised sovereignty. The “Carnation Revolution” was a military putsch, which aimed to put an end to the Salazar’s regime called “Estado Novo” (New State) and re-establish democracy in Portugal. It was led by several “left-wing” military officers through the “Movimento das Forças Armadas – MFA” (Armed Forces Movement).
The Agenda of the “Armed Forces Movement”, which took power after the coup, included, as a “short-term measure”, a political solution for the overseas territories. It was understood then that the decolonization should be based on the principle of self-determination of the peoples involved, so that it should lead, according to their choice and following what had been established in the United Nations’ “Report from the Six”, either to independence, to another form of self-government or to continuation of Portuguese sovereignty. Later, the “Lei Constitucional” (Constitutional Act) 7/74 of 27 July 1974, approved by the “Conselho de Estado” (Council of State, consultative organ of the President of the Republic), renewed the right of the peoples to self-determination, although it seemed to favor the independence of the overseas territories. This Act also determined that the agreements to be concluded with third parties had also to respect that right (Arts. 2 and 3).
It was in that spirit that on 26 August 1974, in Argel, the Portuguese government and the PAIGC (African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde) signed an agreement on the de jure recognition by Portugal of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau as a sovereign State, and of the right of the people of Cape Verde to “self-determination and independence” (Diário do Governo, I S, 30th
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 10
August 1974). A bit later, similar agreements were concluded: on 7th September 1974, in Lusaka, between the Portuguese State and the FRELIMO (Liberation Front of Mozambique), in which the former acknowledged the right of the people of Mozambique to independence, without accepting FRELIMO’s proposal of a gradual transfer of power over a six year period (Diário do Governo, I S, 9 September 1974).
Yet, in order to sign an agreement on a de jure recognition by Portugal of the right of the people of Cabinda to self-determination and independence, General António de Spínola, then Portugal’s Head of State, invited Mr. Luís Ranque Franque, President of FLEC (Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda), to appear in Cape Verde Islands on 15th September 1974. FLEC’s President, Ranque Franque (former President of MLEC), was then exiled in Kinshasa (then Zaïre). Zaïre’s President, Mobutu Sese Seko, prevented Franque from going to the Cape Verde Islands! Mobutu himself went there with the purpose of dissuading Portugal from seeking the independence of Cabinda. In fact, President Mobutu had a secret document signed by Henriques Tiago Nzita (then vice-president of FLEC) that advocated Cabinda absorption as a province of the Zaïre. The plot by Mobutu and Nzita against the people of Cabinda discouraged President Spínola from pursuing further negotiations. The purposes of the meeting in the Cape Verde Islands were reported by the Portuguese newspaper República in an article dated 11 October 1974.
On 26 November 1974, in Argel, an agreement was signed between the Portuguese government and the Liberation Movement of São Tomé and Príncipe, in which the Portuguese administration acknowledged “the right of the people of São Tomé and Príncipe to complete self-determination and independence” (Diário do Governo, I S, 17 December 1974).
Then, on 15 January 1975, in Alvor (Portugal), an agreement was signed between the Portuguese authorities and FNLA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola), MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola) and UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), in which the Portuguese government accepted the right of the people of Angola to independence (Diário do Governo, I S, 28 January 1975). Article 3 of the Alvor agreement declares Cabinda as “an integral and inalienable part of Angola”. The 1975 Alvor agreement was signed by the Delegation of the Portuguese administration made up of eight officials: Dr. Mário Soares, Dr. António de Almeida Santos, Dr. Fernando Reino, Major Ernesto Melo Antunes, Major Pedro Pezarat Correia, Brigadier António da Silva Cardoso, Lieutenant colonel Fernando Passos Ramos, Lieutenant colonel António Gonçalves Ribeiro, and the careless leaders of the Angolan liberation movements, in this instance Dr. António Agostinho Neto (MPLA), Mr. Holden Roberto (FNLA), and Dr. Jonas M. Savimbi (UNITA).
Several incidents preceded the conclusion of the Alvor agreement concerning Angola. But much more eventful was the enforcement of the very Alvor agreement. Well before coming into force a civil war broke out among the three movements, which the MPLA, the only one of them that was supported by Cuba and the Soviet Union, won. During the 1974/75 skirmishes among the Angolan liberation movements, the MPLA (Angola’s ruling party) managed to militarily occupy Cabinda and hence impose to Cabindans the “Angolan nationality”. According to certain observers «Portugal was responsible for this situation, as it did not respect the position of neutrality imposed upon it by the Alvor agreement, permitting, even before independence, the MPLA to receive massive military help, in men and material, from the then Soviet Union and Cuba. Moreover, far from assuming an active position in the settlement of the conflict, Portugal unilaterally suspended the Alvor agreement by the Decreto-lei (Decree-law) 458-A/75 of 22 August 1975. Consequently, on 11 November 1975, power was handed over by Portugal to the MPLA alone, contrary to what had been provided for in the Alvor agreement. Thus, the civil war had continued for almost three decades especially between the MPLA and the UNITA.»
v. A scholar’s evaluation of the Portuguese decolonization
According to Dr. Fausto de Quadros’ «Remarks and Evaluation of the Portuguese decolonization» in “Encyclopedia of Public International Law”, «the decolonization of Portuguese territories suffered from two serious juridical defects. Firstly, it did not respect the right to self-determination, since in no case were the decolonized peoples consulted concerning their future. Instead, a necessary link
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 11
Between decolonization and independence was established, although the peoples in question could have determined their own future in a direction other than independence, as confirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, by the Constitutional Act 7/74 and by spokesmen for the Portuguese Armed Forces Movement. Secondly, the error was made of mistaking territories under colonial domination with overseas territories discovered and peopled by Portugal, such as the archipelagos of Cap Verde and Sao Tome and Principe, which should have been given the same status as the archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores, concerning which the question of decolonization never arose.
Apart from this, the criteria used in the choice of the liberation movements with which to negotiate the independence of the African territories were very subjective. (…) An intention of transferring political power to those movements which at the time claimed to be followers of Marxism-Leninism and were dependent on the Soviet bloc is clearly evident here. (…)
In the light of the responsibility which Portugal had towards her colonies throughout five centuries and noting the colonizing work she left there, expressed in racial sociability and cultural promotion, of which Brazil is a case in point, Portugal should have ensured a more just decolonization, as the decolonized peoples themselves wanted and deserved».
References:
1- Fausto de Quadros, Decolonization: Portuguese Territories, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume I (1992), p. 990.
vi. Author’s remarks about the Portuguese decolonization
It is above self-evident that the Agenda of the ephemeral President of Portugal, General de Spínola, included the de jure recognition by Portugal of the legitimate right of the people of Cabinda to self-determination and independence. Depending upon the author’s thorough researches and inference, the military occupation and resulting colonization of Cabinda by Angola (since 1975) prove to be a premeditated political act by means of which Cabinda and the Cabinda people are deprived of their political sovereignty and legal status (identity) respectively. Bearing in mind the history of Cabinda in the course of the last four centuries, the deprivation of nationality concerning Cabinda nowadays is an obvious result of the uninterrupted wars among the Western imperialistic countries aimed at controlling Cabinda.
Noticeably, from the 15th century to the beginning of the 17th Portugal’s control over the territory of Cabinda (Ngoio, Cacongo and Loango kingdoms) had way on without a single European contender. Afterwards, the arrival of the Dutch, French, Belgian and British occurred. The new comer countries begin each one to challenge Portugal’s right to be in control of Cabinda. The political and ideological frictions between the old player (Portugal) and its challengers (Netherlands, France, Belgium, and Great Britain) ended in intermittent and extremely violent wars. After the Treaty of Simulambuco received attention and ratification at the Berlin Congo Conference in 1884-1885, Portugal managed to demarcate the present-day borders between Cabinda and its two sole neighbors that happen to be the Congo-Kinshasa (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) and Congo-Brazzaville, then under the imperialistic rule of Belgium and France respectively. Thus, an agreement had been signed with France in 1886, and another one with Belgium in 1891.
Considering the unfair role played by France and the United States of America within the framework of the Portuguese decolonization, and in the light of the legal and historical factors that legitimize the distinctive political status of Cabinda, the inclusion of this territory in Angola, according to the United Nations General Assembly resolution 1542 (XV) of 15 December 1960, cannot help being a premeditated political attack on Cabinda’s legal identity and territorial integrity. This, for the reason that the legal and political sovereignties of Cabinda are well known by most permanent members of the UN Security Council as early as 1885.
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 12
In the final analysis, the Alvor agreement is the only tool in which Angola would have grounded the legality and legitimacy of its power over Cabinda. Unfortunately, the Treaty of Alvor cannot help the MPLA-government for the simple reason that Cabindan independence movements had no input on the document and that Portugal had unilaterally suspended it through the Decreto-Lei (Decree-Law) 458-A/75 of 22 August 1975. Therefore, apart from the Angolan powerful army and allies, nothing binds Cabinda to Angola. In other words, there is no legal bond of nationality between the people of Cabinda and the Angolan State.
vii. Shared responsibilities for the Portuguese bad decolonization
The author’s inference is that the malicious political game that has prevented Cabinda’s attainment of independence in 1974-75, is a game whose principal characters are: France, the United States, Zaïre (Mobutu Sese Seko), Portugal (Dr. Mário Soares) and a fake Cabindan (Henriques T. Nzita). A chronology in short to give us an overview with respect to the international political responsibility:
The outbreak of the aforementioned “Carnation Revolution” started in Portugal on 25th April 1974. Portuguese exiled opposition political leaders, like Mário Soares and Álvaro Cunhal returned to the country in the following days. Few days after, May Day was being celebrated in the streets of Portugal. In Lisbon, about 1,000,000 people from all the country joined this occasion and listened to the speeches of Dr. Mário Soares and Dr. Álvaro Cunhal, who just arrived from France on 28 and 30 April 1974 respectively.
In August 1974, few days before the day “D” of the programmed meeting between the Portuguese Head of State, General de Spínola, and the Cabinda leader, Mr. Luís R. Franque, French president Valéry Giscard-d’Estaing met with Zaïre’s President Mobutu Sese Seko in Kinshasa.
On 15th September 1974, the Zaïre’s President, Mobutu Sese Seko, prevents Mr. Franque from going to the Cape Verde Islands, where he was invited for an agreement on the de jure recognition by Portugal of the right of the people of Cabinda to self-determination and independence. Mobutu goes there himself and dissuades General de Spínola from seeking the independence of Cabinda.
On 28th September 1974 President Spínola was removed from office. Under the new Portuguese Head of State, General Costa Gomes, the Portuguese foreign minister at the time, that is Dr. Mário Soares, took the decolonization process of Portugal’s overseas territories in hand. In an article dated 11 October 1974, the purposes of the meeting in the Cape Verde Islands were reported by the Portuguese newspaper República. On 28th October 1974, Álvaro Cunhal, who insinuated that Mobutu Sese Seko was acting under the command of the United States (CIA), went on a business trip to Soviet Union. Later, in November 1974, Mário Soares meets with Holden Roberto, Jonas M. Savimbi and Chipenda in Kinshasa (Zaïre).
On 31st January 1975, a Portuguese demonstration against NATO gathers more than twenty thousand people together. Four days after, the News Agency A.P. announced that the Soviet Union authorities had unofficially asked Portugal certain port easiness for its fishing navy fleet on the Atlantic Ocean, and confirmed, after a Portuguese administration’s denial. On April 1st, back from Soviet Union, the Portuguese captain Costa Martins declared, we quote: “A Soviet Union support for Portugal is needed”. In the meantime, the German Democratic Republic and Hungary signed a medium-term economic agreement with Portugal. For their part, Poland and Romania announced their respective intention to make plans for a long-term cooperation always with Portugal. On 18th June 1975, China denounced the two super-powers’ “fierce antagonism” in Portugal.
In 1974, shortly after the «Carnation Revolution», General António de Spínola met with the US President, Richard Nixon, most probably within the framework of Articles 5 and 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty signed on 4 April 1949, which define between the signatories an Atlantic area of guarantee and immediate action, and mostly Article 4 of the same Treaty which is written as follows: «The Parties will consult together every time that, in the opinion of one of them, the territorial integrity, the political independence or the security of one of the Parties will be threatened.» To tell the truth, Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty faces no matter which threat against the territorial integrity of one of the Member States. How then to understand the obvious.
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 13
Helplessness of both the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) and the Portuguese-American Agreement on the Azores air and naval bases of 6 September 1951, which is a Defense Accord between Portugal and the United States of America? Besides, why was Portugal denied NATO’s backing and solidarity it needed for a safe and equitable decolonization of its overseas territories? Most bizarre is the fact that Portugal, while NATO’s full member State, had to have recourse to NATO’s challenger, that was the “Warsaw Pact”, in its attempt to ensure a more just decolonization, as the peoples of each of its overseas territories wanted and deserved.
What is now self-evident is that Dr. Mário Soares had a monthly financial assistance from CIA during his exile in France, depending uponhttp://pissarro.home.sapo.pt/mariosoares.htm: «Mário Soares foi pago pela CIA durante alguns anos, por isso viveu como um rei em Paris e recebia dinheiro todos os meses. Era pago para trair Portugal, para causar confusão a partir de Paris. Prometeram-lhe que quando chegasse o momento certo haveria uma revolução e ele poderia regressar. A revolução deu-se e, algum tempo depois, ele foi Presidente de Portugal. O Frank Carlucci veio como embaixador porque Mário Soares tinha de ser eleito. (…)».
viii. Author’s deprivation of nationality
On the one hand, bearing in mind all above mentioned, it is self-evident that the author did not fail to acquire a nationality at birth, and obvious that the author’s nationality at birth (the Portuguese) entails the author’s genuine nationality (the Cabindan). On the other hand, it is indisputably evident that the author’s deprivation of nationality, which results from an illegal State succession (military occupation and ensuing colonization of Cabinda by Angola), occurred later in life. Therefore, instead of an original or absolute statelessness, author’s statelessness proves to be subsequent or relative.
IV. CABINDA PEOPLE’S STATELESSNESS
i. State succession and Cabinda’s statelessness
The military occupation and ensuing colonization of Cabinda by Angola, which have long since been ruminated over and concertized by the Western States concerned in 1974/75, have converted the entire Cabinda people into stateless people. Again, Article 1 (1) of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons defines a stateless person as “a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”. In the light of the 1885 Protectorate Treaty, and up to 1975, the Portuguese nationality that was given to Cabindans at birth has to be regarded as a protective tool of the genuine nationality of persons whose mother land is Cabinda.
Since nothing binds Cabinda to Angola, on account of the fact that the Angolan power over Cabinda is thoroughly devoid of legality and legitimacy, fair-minded people and United Nations institutions cannot help acknowledging that there is no legal bond of nationality between the people of Cabinda and the Angolan state. Instead, since Angola confiscates Cabinda’s political sovereignty, what is there is a political bond of nationality between the Angolan state and the people of Cabinda whose legal sovereignty is inalienable.
The fact is that the Cabindan nationality which Western countries concerned have enjoined Angola to completely pulverize, and which the whole international community is gradually and cautiously trying to deny, is the very core of the United Nations General Assembly resolutions 1807 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, 1808 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, and 1810 (XVII) of 17 December 1962. All these resolutions are tangible replies in connection with the petition of the Cabindan representative who had been heard by the General Assembly in November 1962, pursuant to the provisions of the
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 14
Charitable paragraph 5 of the UN General Assembly resolution 1699 (XVI) of 19 December 1961. As replies given by United Nations to the representative of the Cabinda struggle for self-determination and independence, they endorse the fact that Cabinda is a Non-Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations. A Non-Self-Governing Territory proves to be a country whose people have the inalienable right to a distinctive state and nationality. Thus, as long as Cabinda is under the colonial rule of Angola, Cabindans are de jure stateless people whether they are inside or outside their native country (Cabinda).
References:
1- United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/153 of 2000, Nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of States;
ii. Unquestionable denial of justice
In the light of the above mentioned United Nations General Assembly resolutions that contemplate Cabinda as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, Cabinda entails a legal bond of nationality between the people of Cabinda and their associated national State. Bearing this aspect in mind, the case of de jure statelessness of the entire Cabinda people is a “Legal-Political Problem” that falls indisputably within the competence of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), and the UN General Assembly and its Security Council at the same time.
Therefore, the persisting absence of apposite measures taken by the International legal community with respect to protection, humanitarian assistance, and fair solution to the legal-political problem of the Cabinda people’s statelessness proves to be a denial of justice.
Paragraph 47 (iv), of UNHCR document entitled «The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons: Implementation within the European Union Member States and Recommendations for Harmonization», states as follows: “There is only one durable solution to the problem of statelessness, and that is the acquisition of a nationality. The condition of being stateless will ipso facto terminate when one acquires a nationality”. Hence, given the historical and legal factors that have permitted the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the United Nations to define Cabinda as a Non-Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter, the “Cabinda nationality” refers to the legal bond between every individual whose native country is Cabinda and the self-governing and independent State of Cabinda fairly advocated by the UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960; the UN General Assembly resolution 1807 (XVII) of 14 December 1962; as well as Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Noting that the military occupation and resulting colonization of Cabinda by Angola is a political act aimed at crushing the “Cabinda nationality” (legal identity) and frustrating the coming into effective existence of the related national State; and considering that the said occupation and colonization of Cabinda by Angola entails a crime against peace, a war crime, and a crime against humanity at the same time, the author and his people’s dearest wish is that the international legal community will not continue to shirk responsibility. In other words, it is required that Cabinda be forthwith restored on the Agenda of the UN Special Committee on Decolonization in the name of the international law based upon legality and legitimacy, in order that the people of Cabinda that have been deprived of justice for more than three decades may eventually receive justice.
Justice appears to be refused to the stateless people of Cabinda in several ways: (1) by a refusal to condemn Angola’s flagrant violation of Cabinda’s territorial sovereignty and consequent confiscation of Cabinda’s political sovereignty; (2) by a refusal to allow the Cabinda people’s peaceful liberation movement to assert their rights before the UN General Assembly; (3) by an obstinacy to consider the stateless Cabindans as Angolan nationals, which proves to be a political deportment manifestly unjust and one-sided; (4) by a refusal to reprobate the Angolan recurrent military or armed attacks
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 15
On Cabindan refugee camps and settlements in Congo-Brazzaville and Democratic Republic of the Congo, although the said armed raids do endanger the safety and political stability in central and southern Africa; (5) by a refusal to consider resettlement as an instrument of protection and its use as an effectual temporary solution to the problems faced by stateless Cabindans, particularly those who have compelling reasons for leaving the countries of their lawful residence (be it the country of origin or the ones of asylum) due to fear of persecution or because their physical safety or freedom are endangered; (6) by delays equivalent to a refusal to view the prevailing Cabinda people’s legal status within the framework of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness; as well as by a refusal to issue to stateless Cabindans the 1954 Convention travel document for the purpose of travel outside the country of their habitual residence;
References:
1- P. Weis, “Statelessness as a Legal-Political Problem”, The Problem of Statelessness (British Section of the World Jewish Congress, July 1944), and C. A. Batchelor, “Statelessness and the Problem of Resolving Nationality Status”, IJRL, 1998, p. 159, footnote 5;
2- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
3- UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No. 27 (XXXIII) – 1982 – Military Attacks on Refugee Camps and Settlements in Southern Africa and Elsewhere;
4- UNHCR Executive Committee, No. 48 (XXXVIII) – 1987 – Military or Armed Attacks on Refugee Camps and Settlements;
5- UNHCR Executive Committee, No. 94 (LIII) – 2002 – Civilian and Humanitarian Character of Asylum;
6- UNHCR Executive Committee, No. 15 (XXX) – 1979 – Fear of Persecution in Country of Asylum;
7- UNHCR Executive Committee, No. 58 (XL) – 1989 – Fear of Persecution in Country of Asylum;
iii. Cabinda’s legal status as a protected State
Since the ultimate goal of this work is to provide UNHCR with the legal elements reliable enough to help solve the problem of the Cabinda people’s subsequent statelessness, it is required that light be shed over the legal status of Cabinda as a protected State (1885-1975). One of the essential facts to underscore here is that the protectorate treaty between Cabinda and Portugal is not a «colonial protectorate». Instead, it is an «international protectorate».
An international protectorate is a legal relationship between a – “protector” State and a “protected” State or group of States; the latter is sometimes also called the protectorate. The legal basis is a treaty concluded between the two States, by which the protector is bound to defend the protected State against aggression and other violations of law.
Before and after the establishment of the Protectorate, the legal relationship between the protected State (Cabinda) and the protector (Portugal) had been regulated by international law. It is a legal principle that to be effective in relation to a third State it is necessary that a complete protectorate be recognized by this other State. Only after having obtained such recognition can the protector rely on the competences resulting to it from the protectorate treaty. As above mentioned, the treaty (protectorate) between Cabinda and Portugal had been recognized by the protagonists of the Berlin Congo Conference of 1884/85.
What then is the legal status of Cabinda as a protected State in international law? In the light of the international law, before and after the establishment of a complete protectorate the protected State is a State in international law and subject to this legal order. Since the protected State transfers to the protector the competence to act in its name in the field of foreign relations, its sovereignty is restricted. Yet, the protected State is still entitled to exercise territorial jurisdiction over its own territory. Its citizens are neither subject to the legal order of the protecting State nor nationals of this State.
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 16
As a protected State, Cabinda proves to be a State with its own nationals in international law. Again nationality as a legal term denotes the existence of a legal tie between an individual and a State, by which the individual is under the personal jurisdiction of that State. Hence, considering that the international protectorate treaty between Cabinda and Portugal is a protective tool of the Cabinda nationality, and since the fundamental limitation international law imposes in matters of nationality is that a State can regulate only its own nationality and not that of another State, Angola’s effort to wipe off Cabinda nationality proves to be a flagrant violation of international law. Consequently, the international community’s indifference before Angola’s outrageous violation of international law is a self-evident denial of justice.
References:
1- Gerhard Hoffmann, Protectorates, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume III (1997), p.1147.
2- Albrecht Randelzhofer, Nationality, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume III (1997), p.501.
V. SOLVING THE CABINDA PEOPLE’S STATELESSNESS
i. International Protection and humanitarian assistance
International protection and humanitarian assistance are increasingly being denied to the stateless people of Cabinda – refugees and non-refugees. It is worthwhile reminding here the fact that the stateless people of Cabinda consist of two distinct categories – refugees and non-refugees, and that both groups are of concern to UNHCR. While non-refugees are inside the country of origin, refugees are outside the country of origin.
UNHCR’s traditional protection activity was to attempt to ensure that victims of persecution who are outside their State of nationality receive asylum, and thus regain State protection. This function has not lost its importance but it is being more and more affected by changing circumstances and some States’ subjective considerations. Consequently, there is a disgraceful widening divergence between UNHCR’s statutory competences and State cooperation. A new sort of international protection and humanitarian assistance is taking place! Even the core protection mandate of UNHCR is coming under scrutiny, and under practical threats. Referring to “acute operational difficulties” experienced by UNHCR, the Note on International Protection for the 48th session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme stated bleakly:
“… the possibilities for obtaining international protection continue to be diminished as refugees and asylum-seekers face border closures, armed violence, interdiction at sea, expulsions, and legal restrictions as well as premature return to an insecure environment. (…) Men, women and children trying to flee their country, or return to it, have been killed outright, kidnapped, or subjected to sexual violence. … In recent months, refugee camps and settlements have been subject to forced relocations, as have returnees and internally displaced persons; major human rights violations have occurred…” (UN Doc. A/AC.96/882, 2 July 1997, paragraphs 9, 3 and 7, respectively).
Inside the country of origin (Cabinda), the stateless people of Cabinda are facing an outright denial of access to international protection and humanitarian assistance ever since 1975. In «Refugees International»’s survey entitled “Forgotten People: Displaced Persons in Cabinda Province, Angola”, of 26th May 2005, we read as follows:
“(…) Human rights monitors and groups in Cabinda have reported abuse, torture, rape, and illegal detentions perpetuated by Angola’s Army (FAA) in Cabinda. The FAA has been accused of committing human rights abuses against civilians with
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 17
Almost complete impunity. (…) In 2004, Human Rights Watch documented human rights abuses, including extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrests and detention, torture and other mistreatment, sexual violence, and the denial of civilians’ freedom of movement. The UN Special Representative for Human Rights Defenders, Hina Jilani, has expressed concern about the visible presence of the Angolan military so close to civilian populations. Human rights and civil society groups were concerned that their input and public opinion were not considered. (…) Although numerous UN agencies and NGOs have provided humanitarian and development aid to Angola, very few have been involved in Cabinda. Some of the blame falls on the Angolan government which has resisted allowing international NGOs to operate in Cabinda. UNHCR does not have a permanent presence in Cabinda and has not been promoting return there due to lack of security. (…)”.
In most countries of asylum in Africa, as well as in the European Union zone, international protection and humanitarian assistance are increasingly being denied to the stateless (refugees) people whose native country is Cabinda. Even though it is recognized as an instrument of protection, resettlement is firmly being refused to stateless refugees from Cabinda. And this, without the slightest regard for the provisions of UNHCR’s Executive Committee Conclusion No. 15 (XXX) – 1979 on Fear of Persecution in Country of Asylum, and whose paragraph (k) states that: “Where a refugee who has already been granted asylum in one country requests asylum in another country on the ground that he has compelling reasons for leaving his present asylum country due to fear of persecution or because his physical safety or freedom are endangered, the authorities of the second country should give favourable consideration to his asylum request”; and UNHCR’s Executive Committee Conclusion No. 58 (XL) – 1989 also on Fear of Persecution in Country of Asylum, of which paragraph (g) states as follows: “It is recognized that there may be exceptional cases in which a refugee or asylum-seeker may justifiably claim that he has reason to fear persecution or that his physical safety or freedom are endangered in a country where he previously found protection. Such cases should be given favourable consideration by the authorities of the State where he requests asylum”.
While in Africa, particularly in Congo-Brazzaville and Democratic Republic of the Congo, military or armed attacks on Cabindan refugee camps and settlements have become normal occurrences in the eyes of the whole international community; and, in Cabinda, returnees continue to be subjected to murder, armed attack, sexual abuse, forced military recruitment, separation of families, violations of or threats to their personal security and other fundamental rights; within the European Union, especially the States parties to “Dublin Convention”, basic human rights of stateless refugees from Cabinda are being increasingly denied. Apart from being subjected to physical and psychological violence, they are being systematically refused the right to dispose of valid travel documents. Even though the provisions of Articles 27 and 28 of both 1951 UN Convention relating to the status of refugees and 1954 UN Convention relating to stateless persons plead on behalf of Cabindans; and despite UNHCR’s Executive Committee Conclusions No. 13 (XXIX) – 1978 and No. 49 (XXXVIII)
• 1987 on Travel Documents for Refugees, the European States concerned are firmly denying even to mandate refugees from Cabinda, like the author, the right to hold a valid travel document, be it 1951 Convention Travel Document or 1954 CTD.
Most European States are denying resettlement to stateless refugees from Cabinda on account of the Common European Asylum System, well known as the Dublin Convention of 15 June 1990. Yet, in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the preamble of its Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, the Council of the European Union states as follows:
(1) A common policy on asylum, including a Common European Asylum System, is a constituent part of the European Union’s objective of progressively establishing an area of freedom, security and justice open to those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek protection in the Community.
2) The European Council, at its special meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, agreed to work towards establishing a Common European Asylum System, based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967, thus ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution, i.e. maintaining the principle of non-refoulement. In this respect, and without affecting the responsibility criteria laid down in this Regulation, Member States, all respecting the principle of non-refoulement, are considered as safe countries for third-country nationals.
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 18
In view of the abovementioned paragraphs 1 and 2 of the EU Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003, the practices in most European States parties to the Dublin Convention which consist in refusing international protection and humanitarian assistance to stateless refugees from Cabinda, turn out to be both legal and moral contradictions. Can the European Union be a reliable area of freedom, security and justice open to those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek protection in the Community when resettlement, valid travel documents, legal and social security, and freedom of movement are systematically denied to stateless refugees from Cabinda nowadays? Can thus the European Union establish a “Common European Asylum System” based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967, thus ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution, i.e. maintaining the principle of non-refoulement?
References:
1- Peter Macalister-Smith, Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume IV (2000), p. 78.
ii. Contempt for the right solution to Cabinda people’s statelessness
As long as there is a total contempt for the real and right solution required for the Cabinda people’s statelessness, there will be no advantageous progress for the stateless people of Cabinda (refugees and non-refugees) as far as international protection and humanitarian assistance are concerned.
According to the conventional understanding and practice in this field, local integration that implies naturalization, and resettlement, and voluntary repatriation of stateless and non-stateless refugees are “durable solutions”. But while praising the relevance of the durable solutions, we are required not to dismiss the transcendence of the right solutions, for the sake of international order of justice and peace, which is also among the purposes of the United Nations.
UNHCR’s Executive Committee Conclusion No. 29 (XXXIV) – 1983 on Durable solutions (iv. International solidarity, burden-sharing and duties of States), recognized the essential need for the exercise of the High Commissioner’s international protection function to be facilitated by the co-operation of Governments in granting asylum, in providing the durable solutions of resettlement and local integration and in creating conditions favorable to and promoting voluntary repatriation, …
Moreover, UNHCR’s Executive Committee Conclusion No. 56 (XL) – 1989 on Durable Solutions and Refugee Protection, recalling that the protection of refugees and seeking solutions to refugee problems are mandatory functions of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and reaffirming that the process of achieving solutions must respect the fundamental protection principles and concerns; (b) welcomed the importance given in particular to: (i) the inter-relationship between protection and solutions, as well as the desirability of prevention, including through the observance of human rights, as the best solution.
While in African States concerned stateless refugees from Cabinda are being refused international protection and humanitarian assistance to incite the acceptance of the “traditional durable solution” called “voluntary repatriation”, in most European States, particularly in those parties to the Dublin Convention, stateless refugees with Cabinda as the country of origin are being denied international protection and humanitarian assistance in order to foster the acceptance of the second “traditional durable solution” known as “local integration”. Since the two traditional durable solutions draw their legal relevance from the UN GA resolution 428 (V) of 14 December 1950, whose paragraph 2 calls upon Governments to co-operate with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in the performance of his functions concerning refugees falling under the competence of his Office, especially by: (d) Assisting the High Commissioner in his efforts to promote the voluntary repatriation of refugees;
(e) Promoting the assimilation of refugees, especially by facilitating their naturalization; the United Nations Member States that foster local integration and voluntary repatriation as durable solutions to the problems of the stateless refugees from Cabinda, have the legal tool in which they would like to keep secret their political motivations, sidestepping thus the right solution required for peace.
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 19
In any case, as far as seeking solutions to the legal problem of the Cabinda people’s statelessness is concerned, we cannot help stating that the three traditional durable solutions have proved to be ineffectual given their double-faced nature. To incite stateless refugees from Cabinda to accept the voluntary repatriation is a self-evident crime, for it is well known that returnees in Cabinda continue to be subjected to murder, military or armed attacks, sexual violence, separation of families, forced military recruitment, violations of or threats to their personal security and other fundamental rights Thanks to the above mentioned Refugees International’s survey with respect to Cabinda, we know that: “(…) The UN Special Representative for Human Rights Defenders, Hina Jilani, has expressed concern about the visible presence of the Angolan military so close to civilian populations; and that: (…) UNHCR does not have a permanent presence in Cabinda and has not been promoting return there due to lack of security”.
To refuse resettlement to stateless refugees from Cabinda in need of international protection so as to force them to accept local integration through marriage or naturalization as their unique chance, is at the same time a self-evident crime against peace and a crime against humanity. This, for the reason that such denial of justice is an act politically motivated by powerful States supporting the military occupation and resulting colonization of Cabinda by Angola. In the same Survey on Cabinda published by Refugees International we read as follows: “(…) Cabinda is the source of half of Angola’s one million barrels per day of crude oil production. Oil revenues support at least 80% of Angola’s national budget. (…) Countries that purchase Cabinda’s oil, including the United States and China, are reluctant to bring attention to the issues in Cabinda because of their dependence on oil from the province”. Is it an incidental occurrence that in Europe local integration through marriage or naturalization is advocated by imperialistic countries that had challenged Portugal’s right to be in control of Cabinda in the course of the 17th through the 19th century, and that had subsequently prevented Portugal from granting independence to Cabinda?
Given the traditional effort of certain European imperialistic countries aimed at controlling Cabinda, local integration in the European Union countries proves to be a fake and malicious solution to the problems of the stateless refugees from Cabinda. While those stateless refugees who fight off local integration for valid reasons find themselves subjected to persecution, those who accept it become instruments in the hands of greedy politicians and respective political parties. In France, the author was subjected to persecution, before he became victim of the power struggle between the political camp of Mr. Edouard Balladur and the one of President Jacques Chirac.
Due to the fact of getting in touch with some African Ambassadors in order that their respective Heads of State might make common cause with the martyred people of Cabinda in pursuance of Article 35 of the United Nations Charter, the author was brought before the French courts (High Court of Creteil) in 1993, accused of carrying out a political action against the Angolan government. While being persecuted for he extols and accepts in advance the obligations of peaceful settlement provided in the Charter of the United Nations, the leader of FLEC’s profiteering, Mr. Tiago Nzita, who has adopted hostage-taking and human rights abuses as his favorite way to resist Angolan occupation, appears to be undisturbed in the same city of Paris where he lives since 1990 and from where he commands his self-styled guerilla warfare. Most of the FLEC staff in Paris are former refugees in Congo-Brazaville and who have subsequently been naturalized French citizens. It is thus worthwhile reminding here the fact that most Head of States of African countries (labelled as banana republic), rule as European citizens, at Africa and its peoples’ expense!
References:
1- United Nations Economic and Social Council Doc. E/CN.4/2005/101/Add.2 of 21 Feb. 2005 on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights – Human Rights Defenders (Report submitted by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, Hina Jilani – Addendum: MISSION TO ANGOLA);
2- Michael Cosgrove, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/274427: “Political scandal brews over 11 Frenchmen killed in Pakistan”; article dated 19 June 2009;
3- Adam Sage, http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/198-natural-resources/48371-french-establishment-players-convicted-over-arms-trade-to-angola-scandal.html:”French Establishment Players Convicted over Arms”, in: The Times; article dated 28 October 2009.
4- James Mackenzie and David Stamp,
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AB3JR20091112: Ex-French minister links Chirac to arms scandal; article dated 12 November 2009;
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 20
iii. The just solution to Cabinda people’s statelessness
Since the 1885 international protectorate treaty between Cabinda and Portugal is a legal instrument that proves the existence of the State of Cabinda well before Angola’s attainment of independence in 1975, and since it is obvious that the prevailing Cabinda people’s statelessness results from the belligerent occupation (by the use of military force) and ensuing colonization of Cabinda by Angola since 1975, it is worthwhile reminding the fact that a violation of international law occurs when an occupying power confers its nationality upon the inhabitants of the occupied territory. In this case, the right solution to the problem of the Cabinda people’s statelessness is, without a doubt, the legal reestablishment of both the Cabinda State and related nationality.
Angola is carrying out a belligerent occupation in Cabinda. In other words, it is controlling a foreign territory called Cabinda. Nevertheless, under international law, a State does not cease to exist as a legal entity even if its entire territory is occupied by the enemy. The Government, in such cases, as a rule, will be in exile (Government in Exile). As Article 21 (1) of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that: “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives”, the stateless refugees from Cabinda of which the Cabindan National Movement (MNC) consists have that very right. Therefore, given their rights and duties, MNC leaders cannot help reminding UNHCR and the international community as a whole that there is an Angolan obligation to apply the “1949 Geneva Convention IV” in the territory (Cabinda) occupied by it. Since the authority exercised by an occupying power is, as far as international law is concerned, a de facto, not a de jure authority; and considering that there is no international legal duty of obedience for the population of an occupied territory towards the occupying power; it is worthwhile directing world attention to the fact that the Geneva Convention IV and 1977 Protocol I apply to the fight of peoples, in the exercise of their right to self-determination, against, inter alia, alien occupation.
Bearing in mind the above mentioned UNHCR’s Executive Committee Conclusion No. 56 (XL) – 1989 on Durable Solutions and Refugee Protection, which declares firmly that the protection of refugees and seeking solutions to refugee problems are mandatory functions of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and mentions the importance given to the inter-relationship between protection and solutions, (…), including through the observance of human rights, as the best solution; considering Article 15 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares that: (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality; (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality; taking into account the Hague Regulations, whose Arts. 45 & 46 asseverate that there are two basic duties of the occupying power towards the inhabitants of the occupied territory: it must not require any allegiance from the population and must respect certain of their fundamental rights (Geneva Convention IV, Arts. 27, 32; Protocol I, Arts. 11, 75); bearing in mind the provisions of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention IV, according to which “an important protection for the maintenance of the national identity of the occupied territory is the prohibition of transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the territories it occupies”; bearing finally in mind the fact that the issue of statelessness is already under consideration by the United Nations General Assembly within the broad issue of State succession, and the fact that UNHCR has been given a mandate to work with governments to prevent statelessness from occurring, to resolve those cases that do occur and to protect the rights of Stateless persons, we cannot help concluding that, given the humanitarian and social character of the problem of resolving “Nationality Status”, UNHCR is entitled to help reestablish Cabinda’s nationality, that is the Cabindan legal status.
Since the problems of the Cabinda people’s statelessness and refugee status do overlap, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is the agency designated to act as intermediary between States and the stateless people of Cabinda. The ANNEX of the UN GA resolution 428 (V) of 14 December 1950 asserts that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, acting under the authority of the UN GA, shall assume the function of providing international protection, under the auspices of the UN, to refugees who fall within the scope of the Statute of his Office, and of seeking permanent solutions for the problem of refugees. Thus, we have good reasons to rely on UNHCR good offices.
References:
1- Michael Bothe, Belligerent occupation, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume III
(1997), p. 763.
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 21
iv. Responsibilities of States concerned
General principles of international law require that States not deprive persons arbitrarily of their nationality and that persons who are stateless be adequately protected in their basic human rights. Thus, we cannot help reminding UNHCR that as long as Angola maintains its belligerent occupation over the territory of Cabinda, the stateless people of Cabinda will never be adequately protected in their basic human rights all over the world.
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is regarded generally as an authoritative declaration of states’ human rights obligations under the UN Charter and customary international law”. Moreover, Article 1 of the 1930 Hague Convention states that “It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals”. Thus, since the State of Cabinda that had signed the 1885 protectorate treaty with Portugal does not cease to exist as a legal entity, despite the fact that its entire territory is occupied by Angola, we cannot help reminding the United Nations Member States, specially those that purchase Cabinda’s oil, that by endorsing the belligerent occupation of Cabinda by Angola they are endorsing not only Angola’s outrageous violation of international law in conferring its nationality upon the inhabitants of Cabinda, but also Angola’s war against the United Nations ideal of universal peace.
Let’s remind again that, as far as international law is concerned, the authority exercised by Angola (occupying power) is a de facto, not a de jure authority; and that international law does not grant rights to the occupying power, in this instance Angola. Hence, there is no international legal duty of obedience for the population of the occupied territory of Cabinda towards the occupying power that is Angola. The occupying power’s ability to enforce respect for its “interests” is not an authority to create law. So Angola’s ability to enforce respect originates instead from its superior military power and from its Machiavellian capacity to compel obedience. Therefore, Angola’s occult hand behind the activities of FLEC that consist in kidnapping and carrying out armed attacks on foreigners working in Cabinda or just visiting it, is a Machiavellian mechanism intended to generate a sort of political duty of obedience for the population of Cabinda towards the occupying power that is Angola. In this connection, we would like to shed light over the armed attack on the Togolese football players that occurred in Cabinda on 9 January 2010.
Angola’s premeditated armed attack on the Togolese football players has four principal motivations:
(1) to draw from it the pretext to intensify its usual measures of repression and military operations against the population of Cabinda, particularly against human rights defenders, and the excuse to freely carry out new and intensified military attacks on Cabindan refugee camps and settlements in the neighboring countries, with a view to compelling enhanced obedience aimed at defeating the Cabinda people’s rightful hopes of achieving self-determination and independence; (2) to use it as a pretext to augment the already heavy military presence within the territory, with soldiers stationed in closer proximity to civilian communities, with a view to creating a terrifying environment for the population by means of grave violations including instances of abductions, summary executions, rape, etc., and to dissuading imaginable attacks carried out by foreign mercenaries on behalf of the Cabinda people; (3) to use it as a disguise to assassinate influential political refugees from Cabinda, while attributing the assassinations to a pretended Togolese revenge; (4) to utilize it as a means to position France as the exclusive country that has arrant control over the Cabinda issue, considering that the authors of the said attack on the Togolese football players are French citizens.
Though, the very French citizens who claim to have carried out the attack on the Togolese football players on behalf of the Cabinda struggle for self-determination, are individuals protected in France by leading French politicians and business figures found guilty of fuelling one of Africa’s deadliest civil wars through the illegal sale of weapons worth £450 million. Bearing this in mind, the question is to know how can Black French citizens, who are under the benevolent care of French politicians convicted of helping to supply all sorts of weapons to the Angolan government, be reliable as far as the rightful struggle of the Cabinda people for self-determination and independence is concerned.
UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No. 77 (XLVI) – 1995 on Role of the High Commissioner for Refugees: (i) Recognizes that for States to fulfil their humanitarian responsibilities in receiving refugees and in reintegrating returning refugees, and in addressing some of the causes of refugee movements, an effective human rights regime is essential, including institutions which sustain the
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 22
rule of law, justice and accountability; and in this connection calls on UNHCR to strengthen its activities in support of national legal and judicial capacity-building, where necessary, in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Responsibility of States means that an internationally wrongful act, committed by one State against another, entails a number of consequences for its author in the form of new obligations towards the victim. Since Angola’s belligerent occupation of Cabinda and Angola’s adventurousness that consists in conferring its nationality upon the inhabitants of Cabinda are flagrant violations of international law and a war upon the United Nations ideal of universal peace, there is an internationally wrongful act committed by the State of Angola against the State of Cabinda. Thus, it makes sense reminding here the existence of obligations owed to the international community as a whole. Among them the International Law Commission (ILC) has singled out some, like the obligations prohibiting genocide, slavery, aggression, apartheid, the maintenance by force of colonial domination, and the massive pollution of the atmosphere or the seas, whose violation qualifies as an international crime and, as a result, gives all States the right to react. All in all, Angola’s belligerent occupation of Cabinda and resulting colonization prove to be an international crime that gives all UN Member States the right to respond on behalf of international order of justice and peace.
For the reason that the military occupation and followingl colonization of Cabinda by Angola prove to be a flagrant violation of the UN GA resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, concerning the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples; the UN General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, concerning the permanent sovereignty over natural wealth and resources; Article 15 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; as well as Article 1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; it is clear that Angola’s belligerent occupation of Cabinda entails a self-evident offense against peace, war crime, and crime against humanity. Hence, pursuant to international criminal law, the Non-Self-Governing Territory and People of Cabinda faithfully represented by the Cabindan National Movement (MNC) is legally entitled to claim reparation for Angola’s internationally wrongful acts. A subject of international law which commits an internationally wrongful act towards another is liable for reparations. Thus, given the Angolan government’s crimes and the fact that Angola is a sheer subject of international law, there is an Angolan obligation to re-establish the situation which would have prevailed if no breach of international obligation had occurred in Cabinda – restitutio in integrum.
References:
1- United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/50/152 of 9 February 1996.
2- The 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws.
3- Karl Zemanek, Responsibility of States: General Principles, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume IV (2000), p. 219.
4- Rüdiger Wolfrum, Reparation for Internationally wrongful Acts, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume IV (2000), p. 177.
5- UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No. 78 (XLVI) – 1995 on Prevention and Reduction of Statelessness and Protection of Stateless Persons.
6- Dietrich Oehler, International Criminal Law, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume I
(1992, p. 877.
7- Hermann Mosler, Subjects of International Law, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Volume IV (2000), p. 710.
8- Cabindan National Movement (Bartolomeu Capita),
http://cabindas.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/2008-02-06-to-special-committee-on-decolonization.pdf: «”Cabinda” – A Legal Problem still within the Competence of the UN Special Committee on Decolonization» (MNC line of argument directed to H.E. Ambassador Dr. Marty M. Natalegawa, the incumbent Chairman of the UN Special Committee on Decolonization; Document dated 2 June 2008.
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 23
VI. CONCLUSION
The author of this work is a man who belongs to a de jure stateless people since 1975, and who is found to be a stateless refugee. As the statelessness of both the author and his people results from the belligerent occupation of Cabinda by Angola (State succession), we are not before an original or absolute statelessness. Instead, we are before a subsequent or relative statelessness. As occupying power, Angola confers its nationality upon the inhabitants of the occupied territory (Cabinda). This arrant violation of international law has since then been endorsed by almost the whole international community. For instance, the certificate issued by UNHCR Regional Office for Central Africa on 29th August 1984 to attest that the author is a “mandate refugee”, leaves out the author’s legal identity since it regards him as an “Angolan national”, instead of “Cabindan national”.
The stateless people of Cabinda consist of two distinct categories – refugees and non-refugees, and both groups are of concern to UNHCR. While non-refugees are inside the country of origin, refugees are outside their native country. Therefore, the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons as well as the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees apply to the stateless people of Cabinda inside and outside the country respectively. Due to interests of powerful States with reference to Cabinda’s natural resources, notably oil, international protection and humanitarian assistance are increasingly being denied to the entire stateless people of Cabinda (refugees and non-refugees), in order to oblige them to choose either the voluntary repatriation to Cabinda or local integration through marriage or naturalization in the countries of asylum. The third traditional durable solution, that is resettlement, is being denied even to “mandate refugees”. Valid travel documents, “1951 Convention Travel Document and 1954 Convention Travel Document”, are also being refused to the stateless people of Cabinda, refugees and non-refugees respectively.
Considering that the High Commissioner, acting under the authority of the UN General Assembly, is entitled to presenting his views before both the UN General Assembly and ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council), and reporting annually to the very General Assembly through ECOSOC; bearing in mind the fact that from 1965 onward the Post of Deputy High Commissioner has always been held by a United States citizen; taking into account the fact that UNHCR can provide technical & advisory services to States in «review of the status of persons»; and noting that the issue of statelessness is already under consideration by the United Nations General Assembly within the broad issue of State succession; he, High Commissioner, is respectfully requested to direct the UN General Assembly’s attention to the prevailing statelessness of the Cabinda people and to the urgent need to solve the problem of the nationality status of the said people in conformity with the core values articulated in the tools of the international law.
“Orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano”
Berne, 20 January 2010
Bartolomeu Capita (Mr.)
Chairman, Cabindan National Movement
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 24
COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT EXTENDED TO:
H. E. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon Secretary-General of the United Nations
H. E. Mr. Barack H. Obama President of the United States of America
H. E. Dr. Susan Rice
US Ambassador to the United Nations
Mrs. Micheline Calmy-Rey
Swiss Minister of Foreign Affairs
H. E. Ambassador Dr. Marty M. Natalegawa
Chairman of the UN Special Committee on Decolonization
His Royal Highness D. Duarte de Bragança
Duke of Bragança/Royal House of Portugal
Prof. Aníbal Cavaco Silva
President of the Republic of Portugal
Prof. John E. Atta Mills
President of the Republic of Ghana
Dr. Nicole C. Lee
Executive Director of Trans Africa Forum
Honorable Andrew Young
Chairman of the Board of the Sullivan Foundation
Dr. Marc H. Morial
President & CEO of the National Urban League
Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan
Head of the Nation of Islam
Dr. Angela Merkel
Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany
Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil
President of India
The Right Honorable Gordon Brown MP
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Father Dr. Raul Tati
Cabindan Human Rights Activist
Mr. Lyndon LaRouche
Lyndon LaRouche Political Committee
Dr. Mahmood Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
General Shaw Clifton
International Leader of the Salvation Army
Cabinda People’s Statelessness and UNHCR International Legal Obligations/by Bartolomeu Capita/MNC/20_January_2010 25
Pope Benedict XVI
Head of the Roman Catholic Church
Archbishop Dr. Celestino Migliore
President of the Path to Peace Foundation
Ms. Lara Pawson
Journalist/Open Democracy Author
Prof. Dr. Mendo Henriques
President of the Portuguese Democracy Institute
The Right Honorable Stephen Harper MP
Prime Minister of Canada
Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi
President of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Mr. Yukio Hatoyama
Prime Minister of Japan
Mr. Peter Taksøe-Jensen
Assistant Secretary-General (UN) for Legal Affairs
Mr. Lee Myung-Bak
President of the Republic of Korea
Mr. Randall Robinson
US Writer & Social Justice Advocate
Prof. Jean Ziegler
International Human Rights Activist
Mr. Luís Inácio Lula da Silva
President of the Federative Republic of Brazil
Mr. Dave O’Reilly
Chairman & CEO of Chevron Corporation
Mr. Abdelaziz Bouteflika
President of the Republic of Algeria
Dr. H. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
President of the Republic of Indonesia
Mr. Denis Sassou Nguesso
President of the Republic of Congo-Brazzaville
Dr. Jacob Zuma
President of the Republic of South Africa
Mr. Benjamin Todd Jealous
President & Chief Executive Officer of NAACP
Mr. Joseph-Désiré Kabila
President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Dr. Isaías Henrique Ngola Samakuva
President of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola
BY BARTOLOMEU CAPITA/MNC/20_JANUARY_2010
Refugee under UNHCR mandate
Muristrasse 6 / CH-3006 Berne
Mobile phone: 076 517 83 21 / E-mail: Cabinda.struggle@myspace.com
26
MBEMBU BUALA PRESS 