4. For the purposes of this proclamation, a "citizen of the Northern Mariana Islands" is defined as: (1) an individual citizen of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands who is exclusively domiciled, within the meaning of Section 1005(e) of the Covenant, in the Northern Mariana Islands; (2) a partnership, unincorporated company, or association whose members are all citizens of the Northern Mariana Islands as defined in (1) above; or (3) a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Northern Mariana Islands, of which the president or other chief executive officer and the chairman of the board of directors are citizens of the Northern Mariana Islands as defined in (1) above and no more of its directors than a minority of the number necessary to constitute a quorum are not citizens of the Northern Mariana Islands as defined in (1) above.

3 CFR, 1980 Comp. (Jan. 1, 1981), pp. 19-22; 94 Stat. 3719-3721.

Par. 3 of Proc. 4726 set the seaward limit of the fishery conservation zone surrounding the Northern Mariana Islands, for the purposes of the proclamation, at 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, except that to the north and south of the Northern Mariana Islands, the limit of the fishery conservation zone is to be determined by straight lines connecting points for which the coordinates were therein listed.

The Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, signed on Feb. 15, 1975, by the Marianas Political Status Commission for the people of the Northern Mariana Islands and by the President's Personal Representative, Ambassador F. Haydn Williams, for the United States of America, was thereafter approved by unanimous vote of the Mariana Islands District Legislature on Feb. 20, 1975, and by plebiscite in the Northern Mariana Islands on June 17, 1975. It was approved by joint resolution of the United States Congress, signed by President Gerald R. Ford as P.L. 94-241, Mar. 24, 1976, 90 Stat. 263, 46 U.S.C. 1681 note (1976). The full text is set out in P.L. 94-241. By Public Law 96-351, approved September 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 1161, Congress authorized enlistment of citizens of the Northern Mariana Islands in the Armed Forces of the United States, notwithstanding statutory provisions (specifically, in 10 U.S.C. 3253 and 8253) that required citizenship or permanent resident status as a condition for enlistment in time of peace in the Army and the Air Force, respectively.

There were no statutory prohibitions with regard to enlistment in the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Marine Corps, both of which set out similar requirements by regulation, which could be amended, however, by administrative action. The Navy included, furthermore, as eligible persons, citizens of American Samoa and Swains Island, both of which are "outlying possessions of the United States" under sec. 101(a)(29) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(29), and whose citizens under sec. 308 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1408, are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States unless they otherwise qualify for citizenship under sec. 301 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1401.

Most Northern Marianas citizens would be able to achieve full U.S. citizenship under the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, signed at Saipan on Feb. 15, 1975 (see P.L. 94-214, Mar. 24, 1976, 90 Stat. 263, as amended by P.L. 98-213, §9, Dec. 8,

1983, 97 Stat. 1461, 48 U.S.C. 1681 nt.), when the final step required to bring the Islands into self-governing commonwealth status with the United States would have been completed; i.e., termination of the Trusteeship Agreement, entered into Apr. 2, 1947, approved by the United States by H.J. Res. 233, July 18, 1947, 61 Stat. 397 (TIAS 1665; 61 Stat. 3301; entered into force, July 18, 1947). Public Law 96-351 was envisaged as an interim solution to afford citizens of the Northern Mariana Islands the opportunity to enlist voluntarily in the U.S. Armed Forces without having to journey to the United States to obtain permanent resident status.

Enactment of P.L. 96-351 followed upon strenuous urging from the Government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands over a period of several years. See, for example: Governor Carlos S. Camacho to Senator Henry M. Jackson, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, letter dated July 26, 1978, enclosure to Senator Jackson to Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance, letter dated Aug. 10, 1978, Dept. of State File No. P78 0128-0620; and Governor Camacho to William Bodde, Jr., Director, Office of Pacific Island Affairs, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Dept. of State, letter dated Jan. 31, 1979, ibid., No. P84-0170-2136. Public Law 96-597, approved December 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3477, authorized appropriations for American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Virgin Islands.

Title VI of the Act contained miscellaneous provisions directed toward the economic betterment of these insular areas. Section 602, envisaging the possibility of a future political union between the Territory of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, provided:

Sec. 602. In the event that political union is effected at a future time between the Territory of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federal Government and each of its agencies is authorized and directed to assure that—

(i) there will be no diminution of any rights or entitlements otherwise eligible to said territory and Commonwealth in effect on the effective date of such union,

(ii) there will be no adverse effect on any funds which have been or may hereafter be authorized or appropriated for said territory or Commonwealth, as of the effective date of such union, or

(iii) no action is taken that would in any manner discourage such unification.

Whenever any discrepancy exists or arises between the benefits available for either said territory or Commonwealth under any policies or programs authorized by law (including, but not limited to, any formulas for matching grants-in-aid or comparable programs or benefits), the most favorable terms available to either said territory or Commonwealth shall be deemed applicable to said unified area after the effective date of unification.

94 Stat. 3477, 3480; 48 U.S.C. 1681 nt.

87

Other Subjects of International Law
Jerusalem

On March 20, 1980, Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to discuss the current status of United States policy regarding Israeli settlements in Arab territories occupied since 1967 and regarding Jerusalem. The hearing had been prompted: (1) by questions about U.N. Security Council Resolution 465, dated March 1, 1980, for which the United States, after having obtained deletion of certain references to Jerusalem, had voted in its entirety; and (2) by a subsequent statement of President Carter regarding the United States vote-it had been approved in the belief that all references to Jerusalem would be removed in a resolution concerning settlements.

The Secretary testified in substance that there had been no change in United States policy toward the independence and territorial integrity of all the states of the Middle East, including the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace within secure and recognized boundaries and including the United States conviction that a comprehensive peace must “include a resolution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects." It was also the United States view that while the negotiations for a comprehensive peace were in train, the parties should conduct themselves "in accordance with international law and commonsense restraint so as to build trust that a sequence of successful negotiations can bring about a just, honorable, and lasting peace for all.” In this connection, the United States had repeatedly expressed its concern, publicly and privately, to Israeli authorities, about the illegality of Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories and about the fact that they constituted an obstacle to progress in the peace talks.

On the question of the status of Jerusalem, Secretary Vance stated:

On Jerusalem, our policy on this city has remained consistent under the past four Presidents. As President Carter stated on March 3, our position on the status of Jerusalem has not changed. That position remains as indicated by the President in his letter to President Sadat signed at the time of the Camp David accords. With respect to the future of Jerusalem, it has been our consistent position that the final status of the city must be settled in the context of negotiations for a final peace. We believe that whatever solution is eventually agreed upon should preserve Jerusalem as an undivided city. It should provide for free access for the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian holy sites without distinction or discrimination for the free exercise of worship. The solution should assure the basic rights of all the city's residents. We have taken no position on exactly how the final status of Jerusalem might be defined.

U.S. Middle East Policy: Hearing before the Sen. Comm. on For. Rel., 96th Cong., 2d sess. (1980), p. 8; American Foreign Policy: Basic Documents, 1977-1980 (1983), pp. 707-708; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. 80, No. 2038, May 1980, pp. 61-62.

For the statement by President Carter regarding the status of Jerusalem, Mar. 3, 1980, referred to by Secretary Vance, ante, see Public Papers of the Presidents: Jimmy Carter, 1980-81, Bk. I (1981), p. 427; American Foreign Policy: Basic Documents, 1977-1980 (1981), p. 705; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. 80, No. 2037, Apr. 1980, p. 64.

At the conclusion of the Secretary's presentation of his statement, Senator Jacob K. Javits asked whether the inclusion of Jerusalem in S/RES 465 meant that Jerusalem was a divided city, when United States policy had always been that it should be an undivided city. Secretary Vance replied:

If you will go back to 1970 and the statements which were made at that time, we said then that there was occupied territory in Jerusalem, namely East Jerusalem, yet, at the same time, the U.S. Government believed that it should be a united or undivided city. What that meant, very simply, was that it should be physically undivided; that never again should there be barbed wire between the various parts. It did not purport to say what the final political solution should be. It did not speak to the ultimate question of sovereignty. It talked to the question of what the city would be in terms of its physical characteristics.

That goes back to Secretary Roger's statement made at that time, and that has been followed ever since.

U.S. Middle East Policy: Hearing, ante, p. 13.

The discussion continued:

Senator JAVITS. That is the policy of the United States, that Jerusalem shall not be a divided city, or that it shall be undivided. Secretary VANCE. Undivided, that is correct.

Senator JAVITS. All right.

How do you account, therefore, for paragraph 5 of this resolution, which says, "that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices" and so on, "constitute a flagrant violation," and so on? Do you think there is any intention there, than that there can be no change except with the consent of all the Arab parties in the juridical status of Jerusalem, even if a change should be agreed between Egypt, let us say, and Israel?

Secretary VANCE. What that means, and has meant, and has been so interpreted for many years, going back to the late 1960's and carrying right through, is that unilateral actions should not be taken which would change the characteristics to which you referred; that anything that was going to permanently change those characteristics had to be brought about by negotiations. That is what it meant then and that is what it means now.

Senator JAVITS. But that negotiation, or any other, should not divide the city-do we agree on that?

Secretary VANCE. Should not physically divide the city, correct. Senator JAVITS. Let me give you my last question on this subject. The resolution-and this is a very important point to me-spoke of its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population in the fifth paragraph. Is there a difference between the local Arab and Palestinian population, or are they the same? In other words, what are we talking about?

Secretary VANCE. What it means is this. It is merely a demographic description. Some people are Palestinian and some are other types of Arabs. It has no new meaning. That, again, is a phrase which has been used in the past, in resolutions passed at the United Nations for which we voted and about which no question has ever been raised. It is not purporting to make any determination with respect to sovereignty. It is merely a demographic description of the facts.

Ibid.

Later, Senator Jesse Helms asked Secretary Vance if it were United States policy to consider that the part of Jerusalem which came under Israeli control in the 1967 war, like other Israeli-occupied areas, were occupied territory. The Secretary replied that this was the policy and that it had not changed.

Then, in an exchange of views with Senator Samuel I. Hayakawa, Secretary Vance stated, "The problem on Jerusalem is the sovereignty issue." Agreement existed among the parties, the Secretary had stated earlier, that “Jersualem should be preserved as an undivided city, that it should provide free access to Jewish, Muslim, and Christian holy sites without distinction or discrimination for the free exercise of worship, and that the solution should assure the basic rights of all the citizens and the city's residents." "You do not find agreement, however," the Secretary said, “on the question of sovereignty and how you handle sovereignty." Ibid., pp. 25-26.

Subsequently, after legislative initiatives in the Israeli Knesset to change the status of Jerusalem as a matter of Israeli law, the United Nations Security Council by a vote of 14-0-1 (U.S.) adopted Resolution 476, dated June 30, 1980, which, among other things, reconfirmed "that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of . . . Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention [of August 12, 1949] relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War". Resolution 476 also "urgently" called upon Israel, "the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of . . . Jersualem."

For a statement by Ambassador Donald F. McHenry, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, in the Security Council, on the status of Jerusalem, June 30, 1980, see Press Release USUN-76 (80), June 30, 1980; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. 80, No. 2042, Sept. 1980, pp. 64-65; U.N. Doc. S/PV. 2242, June 30, 1980, pp. 5-7.

On July 22, 1980, the seventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly convened to consider the question of Palestine and, on July 29, 1980, adopted G.A. Res. ES-7/2. The seventh operative paragraph called upon Israel "to withdraw com