On June 9, 2008, the UN Special Committee on Decolonization considered yet again the status of the world’s oldest remaining colony, Puerto Rico. The Committee called on the United States to accelerate the process of self-determination for the island, an action that many Puerto Ricans regard as a crucially important step towards fulfilling their fifty-six year-old quest to achieve a majority opinion on the permanent status of the island. However, this is not the first time the UN has issued the same appeal. For the last eight years, the UN Committee has called upon the United States to grant autonomy to Puerto Rico, but has yet to witness any changes. In response to the most recent resolution, Washington has reminded the international community that Puerto Rico democratically decided to enter into a free association with the United States in 1952. Accordingly, the persisting inconclusive political status of Puerto Rico is a domestic matter that has no place on the UN agenda. The United States has repeatedly stated that only the Puerto Rican people can decide the structure of their future political arrangement. If the United States is willing to resolve Puerto Rico’s status, why are Puerto Rican representatives annually attending a UN Committee that has repeatedly failed to produce results for them?
It seems that after 500 years of foreign domination, Puerto Ricans have grown accustomed to having others decide what is best for them. Its leaders can no longer blame outsiders for their continuing subordinate status. In 1967, 1991, 1993, and then again in 1998, Washington assisted the Puerto Rican government in the organization of referendums on the island’s future status, giving its people the opportunity to decide between statehood, independence, or the existing commonwealth. In each instance, Puerto Ricans voted overwhelmingly in favor of the status quo. However, the commonwealth status was never meant to be a permanent solution, but instead a first step towards independence. In fact, the 2005 White House report gave Puerto Rico only two options: integration as a federal state or independence.
Now that the status quo is no longer a viable alternative, Puerto Rican voters cannot continue badgering Congress to grant them independence or statehood if they themselves have been unable to decide between the two. In order to take control of their future and formalize their own decision, they must act now instead of looking to outsiders to solve their problems. Only after adopting their own plan of action can Puerto Ricans demand that Congress approve it. Until then, the only thing stopping Puerto Rico from achieving a permanent status are Puerto Ricans themselves. In this regard, reaching a decision will prove to be the island’s first act of self-determination.
Well done!
Decolonization, indecision, that’s not true. Puerto Rico is a self governing, independent commonwealth of the United States. Living in America 53 of my 61 years, there is no better governing status for Puerto Rico. Would you rather see another backwards,starving,disorganized, island in the Carribean, just like all the other ones? I also truly believe that when America kicked out the Spaniards, independence, could and should have been granted, but it is to late for that now. We live in a different world now, and Puerto Rico can not survive starting all over in this era. Puerto Rico has no natural resources, actually no form of government, except what America has given it. As a proud Boricua, let’s not try to fix mistakes that were made in the past by making even a much bigger mistake now. Long live America, and long live Puerto Rico, under the AMERICAN FLAG, to help protect the island so it does not become another Cuba, Haiti, or Dominican Republic.
Noel Torres
Cleveland, Ohio.
Ms. Michelle Quiles is correct: not until Puerto Rico determines its status will it be able to resolve its economic and social issues.
The status controversy has taken too much time, energy and money away from addressing the important problems the island has to resolve, thus limiting Puerto Rico’s possibility of achieving its international potential and status.
The problem is that the US has not defined which Statehood is willing to give to Puerto Ricans.
While in Puerto Rico the party that has defended the pro US annexation (statehood) option has a definition of the option: with Spanish as the main power language and language of instruction in all public schools(as it is today), a Puerto Rican olympic team (which competes against the US team) and international representation in events like Ms. Universe (which Puerto Rico has won 5 times). The majority of Puerto Ricans who believe in the US annexation (statehood) option believe that Puerto Rico will continue to be a Spanish-speaking Latin American island with congressional representation and presidential vote (plus federal taxes) and that nothing else will change.
This is not the truth when you ask the average American and many US senators who cannot imagine a state without English as the first language and cultural assimilation (with institutions that remind people of their ‘Heritage’) like Hawaii and New Mexico.
I think it is the US that needs to tell Puerto Ricans that US-Statehood means the end of the Puerto Rican nationality, and the beginning of the ‘e pluribus unum’.
Are Puerto Ricans willing to end like Hawaiians (a minority in their own land speaking a foreign language)? That is the question.
I’m a strong supporter of the UN, but it amazes me that they’re asking the US once again to give Puerto Rico independence because we keep trying to! As you mentioned in your article, we’ve arranged several times for them to have referendums on their status, allowing THEM to choose what they want. They keep choosing to stay the way they are. If they voted to become a state, I doubt they would meet much opposition from Americans… certainly they would not from me. If they wanted to become independent, I think they would meet even less opposition. As far as most Americans are concerned, Puerto Rico can do whatever it wants without much concern or impact to those that don’t live on the island. If Puerto Ricans want to become an independent state – self-governing, responsible for importing and exporting all of their goods, and managing their own economy – they can feel free. The UN needs to recognize that it’s not the US keeping them as a “colony”; it’s their own choice. Most of us in the US would actually rather not have it this way.
A beautiful article but so full of half truths. In the 70′s the Puerto Rican population voted on a referendum to make Puerto Rico a state. When it was introduced into the congress of the United States it was voted down by the majority of Democrats. So we continue to answer to our colonizers without the right to even vote for the President of the United States, The same president that orders our young men and women to any and every part of the world to give their lives for a country that considers them second class citizens; And you have the nerve to say that it is because they control their own destiny and aren’t able to come up with a decision of status. The Island does not have the power to determine such actions – it is up to the powers that control the people and the government. If you please, when the masters are ready to free their slaves then it will happen.
The following may be an alternative analysis of the Puerto Rican question.
In legal terms, Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States subject to the power of Congress alone. However, in practice it would be undemocratic for Congress to unilaterally decide the political status of the Island. Congress must dispose of Puerto Rico in consultation with its inhabitants, but it is not up to Puerto Ricans on their own.
Surely Puerto Ricans must reach a consensus on the status issue, but Congress must provide a clear set of viable status options. To exclude some form of commonwealth as the 2005 Presidential Task Force did, and as was reiterated in the 2007 progress report, would leave out the option of approximately half of the Puerto Rican electorate. Note that in the status plebiscites of 1967, 1993 and 1998, the Puerto Rican electorate did not actually support the status quo but rather a commonwealth with more autonomy. Full Puerto Rican sovereignty with US citizenship may be a constitutional impossibility, but many would argue that an autonomous Puerto Rico maintaining US sovereignty and citizenship should not be discounted.
Robert Borras
Ph.D. Candidate, Queen’s University Canada
COHA fellows have consistently lost sight on the crux of the matter regarding Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans did not invite the U.S. Armed Forces to invade Puerto Rico and take over sovereignty over their nation. The U.S. Congress has claimed sovereignty over Puerto Rico with the wink and approval of the U.S. Executive and the U.S. Supreme Court. Why do COHA fellows seem to go so amiss when calling the United States Congress on its complete and utter negligence and crass disregard for human rights with regards to its usurpation of democratic rights in Puerto Rico.
It’s time for COHA to get its act together.
You are late and wrong, but it’s never too late to rectify your propensity for stating half-truths and for an almost impecable taltent for misreading the Puerto Rico problem and its chief culprit: The UNITED STATES CONGRESS.
This discussion is well-intentioned and focuses on the correct principles, but the level of confusion and imprecision is astonishing. When people reach the right conclusions based on confident assertions of fact that are dead wrong, we need to apply the sound principles they espouse to an accurate set of facts.
The problem begins with the UN Special Committee on Decolonization, which mischaracterizes the U.S. position by claiming the U.S. recognizes Puerto Rico as a free associated state. The U.N. and U.S. recognize free association as a political status in which relations between two sovereign nations are defined by an international agreement that is terminable at will by either party. In contrast, Puerto Rico is not a sovereign nation, and remains a territory under U.S. sovereignty. The current federal-territorial association is defined by domestic U.S. law, and allows democratic constitutional self-government only as to local matters not governed by federal law. The U.S. citizens of the territory do not have equal rights of citizenship of self-government at the national level.
Congress has never sponsored any vote on status. The 1952 vote to approve the local constitution was sponsored by Congress, but it was not a status vote, as indicated by the fact that neither statehood, independence, free association or territory status were on the ballot. The 1967, 1993 and 1998 votes on specific status options were conducted under local law, and produced confusing and inconclusive results. There is no record of a majority vote in favor of any status accepted by Congress as legally valid. The assertion that the people have voted repeatedly for the status quo is absurd. The status quo is territory status, with the “commonwealth” system of limited local territorial self-government. Instead, for the 1993 local status vote “commonwealth” was defined as a super-status with elements of statehood and independence combined. That is what the terms “commonwealth” and “autonomy” mean to those who oppose statehood or independence, but that hybrid of statehood and independence is legally and politically impossible. In 1993 “commonwealth” defined as a mix of statehood and independence got less than a majority. When the current status as defined by federal law was on the ballot in 1998 it got less than 1% of the vote.
The 2005 and 2007 White House reports recommended a vote to continue the present territory status or seek a non-territory status, and it defined non-territory as meaning statehood or independence.
For more background, if you want it, go to prrealitycheck.blogvis.com.
Or go to website for The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and get the book “Puerto Rico’s Future: A Time to Decide” by former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, with foreword by President George H.W. Bush.
The UN Special Committee on Decolonization mischaracterizes the U.S. position by claiming the U.S. recognizes Puerto Rico as a free associated state. The U.N. and U.S. recognize free association as a political status in which relations between two sovereign nations are defined by an international agreement that is terminable at will by either party. In contrast, Puerto Rico is not a sovereign nation, and remains a territory under U.S. sovereignty. The current federal-territorial association is defined by domestic U.S. law, and allows democratic constitutional self-government only as to local matters not governed by federal law. The U.S. citizens of the territory do not have equal rights of citizenship of self-government at the national level.
Congress has never sponsored any vote on status. The 1952 vote to approve the local constitution was sponsored by Congress, but it was not a status vote, as indicated by the fact that neither statehood, independence, free association nor territory status were on the ballot. The 1967, 1993 and 1998 votes on specific status options defined in the local political process were conducted under local law, and produced confusing and inconclusive results. There is no record of a majority vote in favor of any status accepted by Congress as legally valid. The assertion that the people have voted repeatedly for the status quo is absurd. The status quo is territory status, with the “commonwealth” system of limited local territorial self-government. Instead of the status quo, for the 1993 local status vote “commonwealth” was defined as a super-status with elements of statehood and independence combined. That is what the terms “commonwealth” and “autonomy” mean to those who oppose statehood or independence, but that hybrid of statehood and independence is legally and politically impossible. Even so, in 1993 “commonwealth” defined as a mix of statehood and independence got less than a majority (48%). When the current status as defined by federal law was on the ballot in 1998 it got less than 1% of the vote.
The 2005 and 2007 White House reports recommended a vote to continue the present territory status or seek a non-territory status, and it defined non-territory as meaning statehood or independence. For more go to prrealitycheck.blogvis.com, or to website for The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and get the book “Puerto Rico’s Future: A Time to Decide” by former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, with foreword by President George H.W. Bush.
Congress has never approved a plebiscite to allow PR to choose a status. The PR Democracy Act of 2009 will hopefully do this, but it means nothing, as it makes no promise of actually respecting whatever choice Puerto Ricans make.
CONGRESS is the problem.