Statement by Manuel Rodríguez Orellana
Former Minority Leader in the Puerto Rico Senate Secretary for North American Affairs Puerto Rican Independence Party
April 25, 2007

independencia.net

Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee, and Members of Congress:

 Colonialism has been proscribed by International Law and the Law of Human Rights.[i] Colonialism therefore demeans the colonized and the colonizers by tolerating conditions that are beneath the standards of civilization and common decency.

 The fact that this hearing is being held today on two dissimilar yet, in some aspects, complementary bills – H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230 – is hopefully indicative of a growing awareness in Washington, D.C. that the U.S. Congress must abandon its century-old complicity in keeping the people of Puerto Rico, a Latin American, Spanish-speaking nation of the Caribbean, under colonial rule.  

H.R. 900 – Positive Aspects 

H.R. 900 echoes recommendations of the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status,[ii] the most recent acknowledgement in a series of official statements by U.S. authorities recognizing that Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. Moreover, H.R. 900 underscores that Puerto Rico’s status under the sovereignty of the United States has not changed since the U.S. invasion of 1898. H.R. 900 thus reinforces the 1950 congressional reports that federal P.L. Law 600 allowing for a constitutional convention for the reorganization of Puerto Rico’s local government under the name of “commonwealth,” subject to congressional approval, did not alter “the fundamental political, social and economic relationship to the United States.”[iii]

 Furthermore, H.R. 900 and the White House Report appear to respond to the unequivocal expression of April 2005 by Puerto Rico’s Legislative Assembly demanding an end to Puerto Rico’s undemocratic political subordination, incongruously vetoed by the current governor of Puerto Rico. Those who insist that Puerto Ricans cannot agree on anything should know that Puerto Rico’s legislature acted unanimously to demand a commitment on the part of the U.S. Government to respond to a request for a non-colonial, non-territorial, fully democratic status, by a date certain.[iv]

 Most importantly, H.R. 900 seeks a clear expression of Puerto Rico’s wish to move beyond its territorial condition under the powers of the U.S. Congress through a federally-mandated referendum.[v] In this respect, it is a step in the right direction.

 H.R. 900 – Suggested Modifications

 The proposed legislation is in substantial harmony with congressional compliance of its constitutional duty to dispose of the territory. A few minor changes to the manner in which that first question is phrased, however, would make it completely unambiguous and thereby forestall the ideological sabotage by the forces of colonial stagnation, both here and in Puerto Rico. At present, H.R. 900 would ask the people of Puerto Rico to answer one of two questions: whether “to continue the existing form of territorial status;” or “to pursue a path towards a constitutionally viable permanent nonterritorial (sic) status.”[vi]

 The ambiguity in the language stems from recent history. Defenders of territorial commonwealth, including the present governor, have argued that they favor a non colonial, non territorial status, while contending that the present commonwealth is neither territorial nor colonial. They have simultaneously argued that, if the present commonwealth arrangement is a territory, it is not a territory under the “plenary” powers of Congress, because Congress “partially disposed” of some legislative powers over Puerto Rico under Law 600. Furthermore, some have argued that the existing form of territorial commonwealth is a “path towards a constitutionally viable permanent nonterritorial status;” and that the Territory Clause of the U.S. constitution provides “flexibility” for the U.S. Congress to bind the United States into a permanent arrangement – some call it a “compact” – until Puerto Rico agrees otherwise, and vice-versa.

 Finally, “Commonwealth” backers could argue – as they have in the past – that if the commonwealth arrangement they favor were not on the ballot, a “None of the above” option must be included. One can foresee the nuisance value of a court challenge similar to that of colonial “commonwealth” supporters in a 1998 referendum as a delaying tactic. For reasons that are still debatable, and in keeping with the Puerto Rico Supreme Court ruling, the none-of-the-above option – which garnered a slim majority – was included in the ballot along with the definitions for Independence, statehood, free association, and unincorporated territory.

 For these reasons, I would urge the Committee to revise the ballot language so that there remains no question as to what Congress wants to ascertain in order to dispose of the territory; and no question as to what the possible answers can be. The best way to accomplish this is with a question that requires a yes-or-no answer such as the following:

 Do you wish Puerto Rico to enjoy a non colonial, non territorial, fully democratic, sovereign status instead of the present or any other territorial status.[vii]

 H.R. 900 – Negative Aspects

 In my judgment, the bill under consideration takes a huge bite that it may not be able to chew. In what amounts to speculation regarding possible outcomes of the proposed referendum, H.R. 900 goes a bridge too far. By attempting to provide for a second referendum in the event of the logical outcome indicating Puerto Ricans’ unwillingness to continue under a territorial regime, the bill plays into the hands of the very forces of  colonial stagnation that have perpetuated our undemocratic subordination. It allows them to say that H.R. 900 is “a statehood bill,” in an attempt to block its passage.

 There are powerful economic, social, political, and cultural reasons, from the perspectives of both Puerto Rico and the United States, for opposing statehood. This bill, however, should not trigger a premature debate over statehood, lest it become, in fact, a statehood bill. However, as it stands, it makes Congress appear, for the first time in history, to offer statehood without a petition. There is no reason for Congress to do this, now.

 Furthermore, an offer of statehood for Puerto Rico – let alone its enactment – is an invitation for potential conflicts so threatening to the United States that the Puerto Rican forces of colonial stagnation may find aid and comfort in powerful congressional enclaves. Some of the factors that could derail this legislative effort at providing for a decolonization process are: the idea of a Spanish-speaking, Latin American nation of the Caribbean becoming the Hispanic state, at a time when there is political unrest among social sectors in the U.S. regarding the cultural and linguistic direction that your country will follow; a Hispanic state that would pay less and receive more federal transfer funds than most states; and a Latin American nation sitting as a state in the U.S. Congress, with more members than most state delegations represented in this House of Representatives. Moreover, annexation as a state would antagonize a vital, democratically energized Latin America that has always viewed Puerto Rico as one of its own. Latin America would view an attempt to incorporate Puerto Rico as a state as an affront, as a new wave of U.S. imperial expansion and hemispheric annexations which would have serious foreign policy implications of a permanent nature.

 In the words of President Martín Torrijos of Panama, the keynote speaker at the Latin American and Caribbean Congress in Solidarity with Puerto Rico’s Independence held in Panama City last November:

[T]he basic problem is that Puerto Rico is the only Hispanic American nation that remains under a colonial regime. For Latin Americans, forever correcting this anomaly must be a matter of principle and a priority of continental proportions. What remains is to agree on whatever is necessary to concrete the Puerto Rican right to constitute an independent republic.[viii]

Finally, a more logical course of action once the illegitimate option of territorial commonwealth is eliminated would be for the Puerto Rican people to convene in an orderly and democratic manner to propose and negotiate Puerto Rico’s decolonization with the United States. To this end, a Constituent Assembly empowered to consider strictly non colonial, non territorial options makes all the sense in the world.

 On the other hand, the provisions of the bill for periodic referenda until Puerto Ricans express their will to decolonize establish unacceptably long periods of continuation as a colonial territory, and contradict the congressional objective and duty to dispose of the territory. Congress could – and simply should – dispose of the territory in the fulfillment of its duty to decolonize and proceed from there. To quote President Torrijos once more:

[I]t is a matter of launching a hemispheric dialogue on the subject, in order to agree as soon as possible on a transition schedule that will – once and for all – solve the problem in a dignified and efficient manner for all involved. Latin America can offer its good offices, promote that agreement, and guarantee compliance and the durability of that schedule.[ix]

 H.R. 1230 – In Sharp Contrast

 The notion of a constituent convention or Constitutional Assembly on Status has been, for decades, a proposal of the Puerto Rican Independence Party. Puerto Rico purportedly held a constituent convention under Law 600, which evidently did not alter Puerto Rico’s territorial condition. Therefore, a true constituent convention should be held so that only decolonizing options will be considered. A referendum like the first one mentioned in H.R. 900 would leave no room for equivocation as to the decolonizing nature of such a constituent assembly.

 H.R. 1230, however, does not address Puerto Rico’s colonial condition. The bill is puzzling in its implication that Puerto Rico has an inherent right to self-determination.[x] This is true to the extent that self-determination involves the natural right of the People of Puerto Rico to its independence, since there is no inherent or natural right of any nation to be accepted as a state of the Union or as a sovereign nation in free association with the United States.

 Yet the bill incongruously suggests the existence of an inherent right to call a Constitutional Convention[xi] to propose self-determination options that, because of their ambiguity, do not exclude territorial commonwealth. The defined options – including “a new or modified Commonwealth status” – purport to be “based on the sovereignty of the People”[xii] and not subject to “the plenary powers of the territorial clause.”[xiii]

 As I previously pointed out, defenders of territorial commonwealth have argued that the present “commonwealth” is neither territorial nor colonial. They have also argued that Puerto Rico is not under Congress’ plenary powers because Congress, unknowingly and contrary to the congressional record, partially disposed of some powers over Puerto Rico. And in reality, the elasticity with which they use the concept of “sovereignty of the People” goes from its insertion into the present “constitution” (which is subordinate to federal laws, regulations, and judicial decisions), to its use to denote the authority of a municipal government to regulate neighborhood parks.

 In fact, its purported attempt at having the Congress recognize that Puerto Rico has an inherent right to call a Constitutional Convention to present status proposals to a Congress[xiv] that may approve, change, amend,[xv] or reject[xvi] them makes a mockery of the notion of an inherent right which, in any event and by virtue of being inherent, would make the bill an unnecessary, superfluous pretense merely to recognize the obvious. No where does H.R. 1230 impose any duty on the Congress to act.

 Some have suggested that, “The process for the self-determination of Puerto Rico must begin with the people of Puerto Rico,”[xvii] as if Puerto Rico had given no indication of wanting a non colonial, non territorial status. This invites an attitude of not enacting federal status legislation until “Puerto Ricans get their act together,” as some have mindlessly phrased it. In other words, after 109 years of subjection to U.S. sovereignty under the Territory Clause of the U.S. Constitution,[xviii] Congress should still do nothing about Puerto Rico’s colonial status. And that is what H.R. 1230, by itself, would really accomplish: that this Congress do nothing – a further congressional abdication of the responsibility that comes with power.

 Just as slavery could not be abolished until those in power enacted legislation to abolish it, Puerto Rico’s self-determination process cannot take place until Congress faces its responsibility under the Territory Clause and disposes of the territory. Slaves could – and did – often rebel; but this did not abolish slavery. Puerto Ricans have rebelled in many ways and on many occasions through the 20^th century – most recently by forcing an end to the abusive practices of the U.S. Navy in the island municipality of Vieques and forcing it to leave.

 It is your responsibility to approve legislation that will effectively dispose of the territory and bring about Puerto Rico’s decolonization. I have shared my views on how federal legislation could accomplish that, and what flaws in the bills under consideration could work against achieving this objective. Congress should know by now that colonial or territorial commonwealth is no longer acceptable and that there is no better time than now to initiate Puerto Rico’s decolonization process.

 *********

 I respectfully request that this statement, with the accompanying Disclosure Statement, be included in its integrity as part of the reco