Statement of President Barack Obama
Tonight, the momentum against the Qadhafi regime has reached a tipping point. Tripoli is slipping from the grasp of a tyrant. The Qadhafi regime is showing signs of collapsing. The people of Libya are showing that the universal pursuit of dignity and freedom is far stronger than the iron fist of a dictator.
The surest way for the bloodshed to end is simple: Moammar Qadhafi and his regime need to recognize that their rule has come to an end. Qadhafi needs to acknowledge the reality that he no longer controls Libya. He needs to relinquish power once and for all. Meanwhile, the United States has recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate governing authority in Libya. At this pivotal and historic time, the TNC should continue to demonstrate the leadership that is necessary to steer the country through a transition by respecting the rights of the people of Libya, avoiding civilian casualties, protecting the institutions of the Libyan state, and pursuing a transition to democracy that is just and inclusive for all of the people of Libya. A season of conflict must lead to one of peace.
The future of Libya is now in the hands of the Libyan people. Going forward, the United States will continue to stay in close coordination with the TNC. We will continue to insist that the basic rights of the Libyan people are respected. And we will continue to work with our allies and partners in the international community to protect the people of Libya, and to support a peaceful transition to democracy.
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta United States Congress. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta United States Congress. Mostrar todas las entradas
martes, 23 de agosto de 2011
martes, 9 de agosto de 2011
El Plebiscito: La gran oportunidad del 2012
Por José F. Rovira
Ex- Presidente PRSSA- UPR-RP
Despierta Estadista, Inc
En el 2012 se pronostica que se celebrara un plebiscito de status en la isla de Puerto Rico el primero desde el 1998. Esto no solo debemos verlo como el cumplimiento de una promesa de campaña debemos verlo como una gran oportunidad en donde se está en el momento adecuado. Todo parece caer al pie de la letra y hasta les diría que la oportunidad de celebrar este plebiscito lo mas tardar en el 2012 me recuerda un suceso parecido hace unas décadas donde 2 territorios se veían en la misma situación. Les hablo de Hawaii y Alaska. ¿Se preguntaran porque nuestra situación se parece a esta del pasado? Sencillo: no somos los únicos que probablemente celebremos un plebiscito de status en el 2012.
El territorio de Guam que en 1898 también se convirtió en posesión de los Estados Unidos como Puerto Rico tiene pautado decidir su futuro político en el 2012. Según encuestas llevadas a cabo por la Universidad de Guam el 57% de los nativos creen en la estadidad y el 76% en la ciudadanía americana, así que podríamos ya pronosticar el resultado de este proceso para Guam. Nosotros no nos quedamos atrás. En la última encuesta donde se pregunta a los puertorriqueños que opción favorecería los números son casi parecidos a esos en Guam. Podemos decir que para el 2012 los Estados Unidos se verá con la situación de tener que rechazar o aceptar como estado no a uno sino a dos de sus territorios. La historia parece repetirse nuevamente para la gran nación.
En los 40 ocurrieron tres cosas. Al igual que hoy la nación se encontraba en guerra, crisis económica y tanto Hawaii como Alaska llevaron a cabo plebiscitos en donde en ambos casos, como ya sabemos, prevaleció la Estadidad. No fue hasta el 1959 que el Congreso lo hizo oficial. ¿Por que tardaron tanto? Todo fue por un “issue” de poder en el Congreso. Hawaii era muy republicano para los demócratas y Alaska muy demócrata para los republicanos así que individualmente para estos territorios el asunto no iba a resolverse mientras ambos partidos temieran perder poder. La gran solución al problema fue sencilla. Se creó lo que llamaríamos un “package” en donde para balancear el poder se le otorgo simultáneamente la estadidad a ambos territorios.
Este debe ser el ejemplo a seguir tanto para Guam como Puerto Rico. Guam es considerado republicano y Puerto Rico en su mayoría demócrata y digo mayoría porque sabemos que en nuestra isla una buena cantidad de personas son conservadoras y estoy seguro votarían republicano. Además tengan presente que las raíces del PNP son republicanas. Tanto Fortuño, Jennifer, Aponte y Santini son republicanos. Dicho esto entiendo que podemos llevar al Congreso una oferta de estadidad balanceada al Congreso. 2 senadores para cada partido y de 6 congresistas me atrevo a decir que serán 3 para cada uno además de se le dará la oportunidad a unos 3.9 millones de ciudadanos americanos entre ambos territorios a poder acabar con el coloniaje y disfrutar de su ciudadanía plena. Por eso le sugiero al gobierno de Puerto Rico que decida la fecha para el plebiscito lo más pronto posible y que dentro de dicha propuesta extendamos una mano aliada al territorio de Guam para que juntos luchemos por lo que ambos queremos: Dignidad e igualdad.
Ex- Presidente PRSSA- UPR-RP
Despierta Estadista, Inc
En el 2012 se pronostica que se celebrara un plebiscito de status en la isla de Puerto Rico el primero desde el 1998. Esto no solo debemos verlo como el cumplimiento de una promesa de campaña debemos verlo como una gran oportunidad en donde se está en el momento adecuado. Todo parece caer al pie de la letra y hasta les diría que la oportunidad de celebrar este plebiscito lo mas tardar en el 2012 me recuerda un suceso parecido hace unas décadas donde 2 territorios se veían en la misma situación. Les hablo de Hawaii y Alaska. ¿Se preguntaran porque nuestra situación se parece a esta del pasado? Sencillo: no somos los únicos que probablemente celebremos un plebiscito de status en el 2012.
El territorio de Guam que en 1898 también se convirtió en posesión de los Estados Unidos como Puerto Rico tiene pautado decidir su futuro político en el 2012. Según encuestas llevadas a cabo por la Universidad de Guam el 57% de los nativos creen en la estadidad y el 76% en la ciudadanía americana, así que podríamos ya pronosticar el resultado de este proceso para Guam. Nosotros no nos quedamos atrás. En la última encuesta donde se pregunta a los puertorriqueños que opción favorecería los números son casi parecidos a esos en Guam. Podemos decir que para el 2012 los Estados Unidos se verá con la situación de tener que rechazar o aceptar como estado no a uno sino a dos de sus territorios. La historia parece repetirse nuevamente para la gran nación.
En los 40 ocurrieron tres cosas. Al igual que hoy la nación se encontraba en guerra, crisis económica y tanto Hawaii como Alaska llevaron a cabo plebiscitos en donde en ambos casos, como ya sabemos, prevaleció la Estadidad. No fue hasta el 1959 que el Congreso lo hizo oficial. ¿Por que tardaron tanto? Todo fue por un “issue” de poder en el Congreso. Hawaii era muy republicano para los demócratas y Alaska muy demócrata para los republicanos así que individualmente para estos territorios el asunto no iba a resolverse mientras ambos partidos temieran perder poder. La gran solución al problema fue sencilla. Se creó lo que llamaríamos un “package” en donde para balancear el poder se le otorgo simultáneamente la estadidad a ambos territorios.
Este debe ser el ejemplo a seguir tanto para Guam como Puerto Rico. Guam es considerado republicano y Puerto Rico en su mayoría demócrata y digo mayoría porque sabemos que en nuestra isla una buena cantidad de personas son conservadoras y estoy seguro votarían republicano. Además tengan presente que las raíces del PNP son republicanas. Tanto Fortuño, Jennifer, Aponte y Santini son republicanos. Dicho esto entiendo que podemos llevar al Congreso una oferta de estadidad balanceada al Congreso. 2 senadores para cada partido y de 6 congresistas me atrevo a decir que serán 3 para cada uno además de se le dará la oportunidad a unos 3.9 millones de ciudadanos americanos entre ambos territorios a poder acabar con el coloniaje y disfrutar de su ciudadanía plena. Por eso le sugiero al gobierno de Puerto Rico que decida la fecha para el plebiscito lo más pronto posible y que dentro de dicha propuesta extendamos una mano aliada al territorio de Guam para que juntos luchemos por lo que ambos queremos: Dignidad e igualdad.
jueves, 14 de abril de 2011
A Short Analytic Overview of the United States And Its Colonies With Special Reference on Puerto Rico
By: Julio Figueroa Nuñez, student of PUCPR Law School and member of PRSSA.
Abstract:
In the following comparative analysis I attempt to show how colonialism skews the semblances of democracy in the United States. When the relationship between the United States and its colonies is considered, the United States’ democratic institutions significantly break down both in meaning and in practical character. Because the colonial subjects lack the basic democratic principles the US promotes throughout the world, understanding colonialism is important if we are to be successful in advancing democracy and other US interests.
Since the United States and its colonies are not considered politically separate countries within a ‘region’ as the “Comparative Political Analysis” question requests, their political and economic “separate and not all-together equal” relationship warrants the omission of a regional comparative analysis in favor of a colonial one.
______________________________________
During the 20th Century, the United States established international institutions designed to serve its interests long after its global prominence is faded. From time to time, powerful nation members of international institutions such as the WTO, World Bank, IMF, NATO, and the UN among others, have used them to promote a particular ideology in the world. From investment and monetary relief to peace-keeping and war, advocates seeking political or economic intervention through international institutions seem to always manage to insert the word democracy and freedom in their pleas. Unfortunately, many countries advocating international intervention on political and economic matters, whether of global benefit or not, have at some point sidestepped essential democratic tenets. Seduced by the advent of territorial and economic expansion, many democracies abandon the principles which they once genuinely stood by and defended.
When the United States expanded its political dominion and territory in acquiring colonial possessions, democratic representation was not extended to their colonial subjects. Thus American imperialism did not spread and strengthen democracy as some wanted to believe; on the contrary, expansion deteriorated the democratic institutions of the United States and limited the freedoms of the new subjects. Hence, one is compelled to ask how can one country declare preeminent war with others on the grounds (among several) to establish for them the freedoms provided by democratic regimes when it deprives those same privileges and rights to its own citizens in its colonies?
To show the moral, political and legal challenges colonial possessions represent to our democratic institutions I will explore the relationship between the United States and its colonies. Several factors in the relationship I will analyze are: the implications of the US colonial relationship with its territories; colonial representation; and culture.
1. Understanding Colonialism
Colonialism is a methodological system of oppression superimposed on the less powerful, historically rationalized by benevolent and patronizing claims of one group of people over another. A showcase of the once rampant pro-colonial fervor that engulfed many Europeans after the “discovery” is exemplified by Jules Harmand, a French proponent of colonialism, when he declared, “The basic legitimation of conquest over native peoples is the conviction of our superiority, not merely our mechanical, economic, and military superiority, but our moral superiority,” (Said, 1993, p. 17). The imperialist fervor was also present in the United States as well. The difference was the hesitation that expansion beyond our continental borders would lead to implications far more costly than their worth. I believe the implications of imperial expansion and how it has atrophied the development of many nations will clearly show why understanding colonialism is still relevant and ought to be important to political scientists.
Traditionally, the United States has invoked democratic principles such as liberty and civil rights around the world as the best possible form of government despite denying those rights to its colonial subjects. Hence, the claim of being the great global proponent of democracy has not always been genuine or true. Our interest in advancing democracy becomes more difficult when we have to account for, for example, our interventions in foreign soils where we have often deposed democratically elected leaders in favor of totalitarian ones. Contradictions such as these show how the pursuit of US global interests and the promotion of democracy would be a hard sell to some. As long as democracy is used as a tool to conquer and oppress peoples and not the tool that can liberate them, US interests will always be more difficult to achieve.
Consider that in 1800 the West claimed to have 55 percent of the world’s territory when in actuality their borders only held about 35 percent in real terms, (Said, 1993, p. 8). The percentage claimed would later grow to 85 percent by 1914 with European claims alone, not counting the emerging American territorial expansion, (Said, 1993, p. 8). Just a few decades before 1914, the United States had claimed several territories: Hawaii, Alaska, The Philippines, Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, minor outlying Pacific islands and atolls and later, the Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. Such vast claims of lands by western powers are indicative of the quantity of native peoples from all over the world that have been victimized by colonialism and its consequences. It is therefore no stretch to suggest that vast numbers of nations are still affected by colonization long after their apparent decolonization.
As a system of conquer and control, colonialism imposes on colonial subjects the establishment of institutions that organize their territories in order to secure their “governability.” Because these institutions are almost always established by the conquering metropolis, they bear the characteristics of the metropolis that establishes them thereby creating “patterns of practice” that “affect state behavior” akin to their creators, (Keohane, 2005, p. 8). Thus, institutions established by the metropolis are designed to mold the colony to the colonist political, social, and economic likeness. Hence, the Constitution of Puerto Rico for example, was approved only after it met the Congressional requirement of resembling the US Federal Constitution. The same Congressional requirement has been imposed on other US territories like Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. For reasons I will later explain, I worry that the process of colonial assimilation will lead our territories towards the same dire socio-political and economic consequences many former European colonies are experiencing should they secede from the US.
Colonial institutions are also designed to become what Edward T. Hall calls extension transferences. By extension transferences I mean institutions designed to influence subjects and shape local cultures long after their independence (or after any change to the status quo is made). The institutions established by the colonists have almost always taken the place of the process of colonization through colonial-institutional appropriation by colonial subjects, (Hall, 1981, p. 28). When appropriated culturally, politically, and economically, institutions established by a foreign power would no longer be seen or identified as foreign by the native people. From the way the legal and justice system is set up, to what subjects are taught in schools, all are designed to continue assimilation with or without close supervision from the metropolis.
In Power and Powerlessness: Queiscence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley, John Gaventa shows how the ‘foreign power’ assimilates some aspects of the culture only to shape and influence it later. The ‘foreign power’ then proceeds to impose its will by giving its subjects the sense that they have the freedom to participate and the freedom to have a choice when they in fact do not, (Gaventa, 1982, p. 63). In this sense, political and economic decisions in the colonial regime are already made because they are determined by the institutions established by the metropolis. In a sense, colonial subjects play a game not of their choosing with rules not their own. After a few generations, they appropriate and assimilate the game and the rules, and often passively play to serve their determined roles. Colonial institutions thus perpetuate the process of colonization because it shapes the conditions for eventual appropriation of native peoples.
Native appropriation further secures the conditions necessary for neocolonialism to occur should the colony secede. Neo-colonialism is hard to identify because unlike colonialism, the metropolis is seldom visibly involved. As I have alluded to before, many former colonies have fallen victim to institutional extension transference. As such, neo-colonial nations may find it difficult to create the cultural, political and economic stability required to succeed as a nation because colonial institutions have become integral to the political, economical and social framework of the country. Some institutions that are remnants of colonialism become so assimilated into the local institutional apparatus that identifying them becomes hard and making their eradication difficult.
According to Mark Bray, neocolonialism is used to describe “the control of states by external powers despite the formal appearance of constitutional independence,” (Bray, 1993, p. 334). Kwame Nkrumah, first president of Ghana, describes a neo-colony as being a “State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside,” (Bray, 1993, p. 334). One important difference between colonialism and neocolonialism however, is that under modern colonialism as practiced by the United States, the colonies have access, albeit limited, to political and legal institutions of the metropolis. Under neo-colonialism, exploitation of the powerful over the weak is not always as apparent, and the weak are usually left voiceless as their governments either betrays them or fall powerless against the metropolis. Should the nation under neocolonialism wish to address any grievance, their resources become limited and their claims hard to pursue. Only those willing to know history can bear witness to their painful colonial past and their equally painful neocolonial present.
Because their colonial condition is acknowledged by US law, the limited access to political and legal institutions provides US colonies a space where they can address their grievances. As we shall see in the following section, without adequate representation, the legal and political rights colonies have do not necessarily mean much. Because they have political and economical disadvantages, colonies are often ignored by a Federal government that is not held accountable to its possessions.
2. Colonialism & Representation
When Alexis de Toqueville visited the young US republic in 1831, he was impressed by the advancement of equality and the respect the American people had for democracy. Although he romanticized the US, he nevertheless provides us incite to how the country was then compared to how it is today, (Collins & Makowsky, 1993, p. 55). Today we have a country where people spend tens of millions of dollars in political campaigns that if elected, will only earn them a 400 thousand dollar a year position. Billions are poured every year in campaigns and lobby groups by corporations and organizations seeking to sway or buy the vote of members of Congress. Those are dollars neither the poor or average middle class person has. If the middle class ever ruled the country as Toqueville thought, those days seem long past.
Because of the important role money has in Washington, some analysts frequently argue that gaining access to the governmental decision making process by ordinary citizens and activist groups in the US has become more difficult. If it is true that political access to Washington, D.C. has become more difficult over the years, then imagine the prospects colonies have in gaining any access. For the colonies, gaining even half of the access ordinary citizens and activist groups may have is close to null considering their political and economic disadvantage. By the mere condition of being colonies, no US territory has the same kind of access in Washington, D.C. as States or their residents. The fact they are colonies means they lack real political representation. While it is true US territories can send non-voting delegates to the US House of Representatives (with the exception of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), they seldom have any real effect, (Thornburgh, 2007, p. 30). The amount of money territories have to spend on lobby firms and campaign contributions to make up for the lack of representation has become a very lucrative source of income for many in Washington over the years as well. However, because they do not have voting representation, members of Congress do not have to worry about being accountable to territorial residents or worry about winning elections because territorial residents cannot vote.
Delegates US territories send to Washington, D.C. have the right to speak on the House floor, but cannot vote for any legislation considered there. Instead, delegates rely on the good will of any voting House member willing to help their causes. Territories have to also spend millions of dollars in lobby groups and in campaign contributions to help sway members of Congress to make up for their lack of political power. As mentioned before, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is the only US territory that does not have a delegate in Congress. Instead, it sends a “resident representative” to Washington, D.C. in order to promote “good relations between the federal and territorial governments,” (Thornburgh, 2007, p. 30). Given that there is no significant difference between having a delegate officially represent a territory and having a “resident representative,” one can conclude that territories with no delegates are not missing out on much. Especially considering that all territories, whether they have delegates or not, have to spend millions of dollars on lobbying firms and campaign contributions anyway.
Territories that do have delegates can only send one elected official to represent the territory “at-large.” In the case of Puerto Rico, the largest of all US territories with almost 4 million American citizens, having just one delegate to represent the island defeats the practical purpose of representation in the House. Adding insult to injury is the fact that by virtue of living in a territory, American citizens cannot vote for the President of the United States. The denial of the right to vote for president is usually reserved for those who are either non-citizens or who have committed serious Federal crimes. It is uncanny that US citizens are being denied voting rights or any form of just representation by virtue of residing in a Territory while at the same time the US advocates the virtues of democracy around the world. While colonialism itself is a system of discrimination and exploitation, it is not the only type of discrimination territories endure. In the next section, I discuss the fact that many colonials celebrate their distinct cultures and are often treated unfairly for it. Various groups in the US view their cultural enthusiasm as either a threat or as an expression of contempt towards the US when in fact their culture is one of the few things they have left after surviving colonialism.
3. Colonialism & Culture
In Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, Samuel P. Huntington worries about the future cohesion of the US union. In the book he warns of a US identity crisis caused by the threat of immigrants who are failing to assimilate to the dominant Anglo culture. Referring to the Mexican immigration wave, Huntington writes: “As [Mexican] numbers increase, Mexican-Americans feel increasingly comfortable with their own culture and often contemptuous of the American culture, (Huntington, 2004, p. 254). He continues, “They demand recognition of their culture… [and] they increasingly call attention to and celebrate their Hispanic and Mexican past,” (Huntington, 2004, p. 255). He then cites a 1999 report that indicated how the growth of the Mexican and Hispanic community has facilitated their ‘Latinization’ and the affirmation of their heritage, (Huntington, 2004, p. 255). For colonial peoples who were conquered by a foreign super-power (a category Mexican-Americans in the Southern Border States may qualify for in many respects), their heritage, customs and their celebration may be all they have to hold on to.
Through conquest and opportunity, the acquisition of colonial possessions ensured the multi-cultural character of the United States. In many respects, our greatest strength is our multiculturalism. The diversity of cultures almost guarantees the flow of fresh and innovative ideas into our national political discussion. To ask all Americans to disregard their cultural background and assimilate into one, especially when colonial subjects did not have a choice to be part of the culture that conquered them is preposterous and obscene.
Today the United States is invigorated by the Chamorro culture of Guam, the Polynesian culture of American Samoa, the Latin culture of Puerto Rico, and the Afro-Caribbean culture of the Virgin Islands. All these territories mirror American society because they have already been heavily assimilated. The only thing residents of territories have that they can call their own is the unique culture that in essence remains somewhat intact after colonization. Although I understand the concern some have regarding identity and language, for me, being American has always been about ideology and love for our country and its peoples, not about race. The preservation of our unique individuality however, is for me also part of being American. Because I would certainly not rely on Samuel P. Huntington to preserve my distinct cultural character as a Puerto Rican, it is up to me and others to do so. Preserving a cultural distinction and celebrating it does not mean a lack of love, contempt, or disinterest for the rest of the US as some seem to believe.
Colonization has also brought us to a place where there is no way back because there is no past to go back to. Puerto Rico for example, has never been an independent country in its more than 500 years of ‘discovery.’ In the more than 100 years under US colonial rule, Puerto Ricans have become a hybrid culture of Latin and Anglo customs. Never fully included to either culture, but never fully excluded. They talk Spanish, English, and some even speak Spanglish. And yet they preserve their heritage wherever in the US (and the world) they choose to settle. Aurora Levins Morales expressed the Puerto Rican experience in her poem Child of the Americas:
I am not African. Africa is in me, but I cannot return.
I am not Taina. Taino is in me, but there is no way back.
I am not European. Europe lives in me, but I have no home there.
I am new. History made me. My first language was spanglish.
I was born at the crossroads
And I am whole, (Levins Morales, 1995, p. 79).
I would hope Samuel P. Huntington would agree that if there is any culture that has genuinely struggled with an identity problem, it has been US colonial peoples such as Puerto Ricans. With no political representation, a limited political voice, and often falling victim to Congressional neglect, US colonies continue to develop the chunk of culture that has survived the colonial experience. Their cultures have survived not only by virtue of their geographical distance from the metropolis, but by virtue of their will to not be totally ‘disappeared’ by assimilation.
4. Colonialism and the Future
In Who Rules America? Power, Politics, & Social Change, G. William Domhoff provides an analytical critique on power in the United States. In the book, Domhoff asks the reader to consider three questions: Who benefits? Who Governs? and, Who wins? (Domhoff, 2006, p. 13). While one must acknowledge that there is no singular answer for these questions, it is clear colonial peoples are not the ones who benefit, govern, or win within the US colonial system. As a colonial subject, I have witnessed how interest groups, politicians, and corporations often work to keep the status quo intact. Colonialism itself has become quite a lucrative enterprise for the few at the expense of the many.
While I believe they should not be absolved from any responsibility, these interest groups, misguided politicians, and corporations are not solely to blame for our ills or our colonial condition. I have come to the realization that there are institutions that provide the right environment that allow special interest groups, politicians, and corporations to become the kinds of problems Domhoff describes and that also perpetuate our colonial condition. Like the other US territories, my island of Puerto Rico remains a conquered land, paradoxically, out of apparent choice. After 500 years, Puerto Rico remains the oldest colony in the world. For over 100 years the island has been a US colony. For 50 years of the 100 years, Puerto Ricans have ‘chosen’ to remain a colony. But the reality is that the system is set up so territories like Puerto Rico think they have the option to choose to remain colonies or change if they wish, when in fact they do not. However, results of plebiscites and referendums always seem to favor contented colonial subservience. Not surprisingly, these results are used by members of Congress as convenient pretexts to take no action at all.
US territories also face the increasing difficulty of trying to find their place inside the US Federal system (being part of the nation and at the same time preserving their distinct culture from the rest of the country). Their lack of political power, among the many colonial disadvantages I have mentioned throughout the essay, makes them easy targets for prejudiced and misguided groups. Without equal and just representation, territories are left almost defenseless against groups pushing for the complete assimilation of their cultures and the eradication of their languages.
On the other hand, the burden of possessing colonial territories has come at a very high price for the US; costly for its democracy, and for its global credibility. The unresolved colonial relationship, primarily the Constitutional challenges of citizenship without representation shows colonialism’s incompatibility with the US democratic system. With the acquisition of overseas territories in 1898, the US departed from its practice of incorporating territories and instead experimented with various forms of colonial arrangements. Territories such as the Philippines and Cuba were prepared for independence. Other overseas territories were prepared for statehood as in the case of Hawaii, while others sadly became neo-colonies like the islands of Palau and Micronesia. Others like Guam and Puerto Rico remain ‘unincorporated’ US possessions whose citizens are Americans by birth.
It seems clear that the need to make other arrangements is long overdue. Without Congressional action, colonies are left to have apparent choices between false alternatives for a future already determined by colonialism. Establishing the right to vote in Federal elections, and providing delegates with voting rights in the House of Representatives would be a step in the right direction. To provide colonies the means to defend themselves against those who do not serve their interests, is to provide them the means to preserve their cultures while also ensuring their engagement in the national political discussion. A real process of decolonization by providing the territories the means to engage the national body politic would undoubtedly give the US the opportunity to reestablish its dignity and the dignity of its colonial subjects – a dignity that both lost during the colonial experience.
Cited Works
Bray, M. (1993) Education and the Vestiges of Colonialism: Self-Determination,
Neocolonialism and Dependency in the South Pacific. Comparative Education. Vol. 29, No. 3. retrieved 29 September 2007 from JSTOR from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici 03050068%281993% 2929% 3A3%3C333%3AEATVOC%3E2.0.CO%3V2-7
Collins R. & Makowsky M. (1993) The Last Gentleman: Alexis de Toqueville. The Discovery of
Society. Fifth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Domhoff, G. W. (2006) Who Rules America? Power, Politics, & Social Change. Fifth Edtion.
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Gaventa, J. (1982) Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian
Valley. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Hall, E. T. (1989) Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books.
Huntington, S. P. (2004) Who Are We? The Challenges of America’s National Identity. New
York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
Keohane, R. O. (2005) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political
Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Levins Morales, A. (1995) Child of the Americas. Boricuas: Influential Puerto Rican Writings
– An Anthology. Edited by Roberto Santiago. New York: The Random House Publishing Group.
Thornburgh, D. (2007) Puerto Rico’s Future: A Time to Decide. Washington, D.C.: Center for
Strategic and International Studies Press.
Said, E. W. (1993) Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books
Abstract:
In the following comparative analysis I attempt to show how colonialism skews the semblances of democracy in the United States. When the relationship between the United States and its colonies is considered, the United States’ democratic institutions significantly break down both in meaning and in practical character. Because the colonial subjects lack the basic democratic principles the US promotes throughout the world, understanding colonialism is important if we are to be successful in advancing democracy and other US interests.
Since the United States and its colonies are not considered politically separate countries within a ‘region’ as the “Comparative Political Analysis” question requests, their political and economic “separate and not all-together equal” relationship warrants the omission of a regional comparative analysis in favor of a colonial one.
______________________________________
During the 20th Century, the United States established international institutions designed to serve its interests long after its global prominence is faded. From time to time, powerful nation members of international institutions such as the WTO, World Bank, IMF, NATO, and the UN among others, have used them to promote a particular ideology in the world. From investment and monetary relief to peace-keeping and war, advocates seeking political or economic intervention through international institutions seem to always manage to insert the word democracy and freedom in their pleas. Unfortunately, many countries advocating international intervention on political and economic matters, whether of global benefit or not, have at some point sidestepped essential democratic tenets. Seduced by the advent of territorial and economic expansion, many democracies abandon the principles which they once genuinely stood by and defended.
When the United States expanded its political dominion and territory in acquiring colonial possessions, democratic representation was not extended to their colonial subjects. Thus American imperialism did not spread and strengthen democracy as some wanted to believe; on the contrary, expansion deteriorated the democratic institutions of the United States and limited the freedoms of the new subjects. Hence, one is compelled to ask how can one country declare preeminent war with others on the grounds (among several) to establish for them the freedoms provided by democratic regimes when it deprives those same privileges and rights to its own citizens in its colonies?
To show the moral, political and legal challenges colonial possessions represent to our democratic institutions I will explore the relationship between the United States and its colonies. Several factors in the relationship I will analyze are: the implications of the US colonial relationship with its territories; colonial representation; and culture.
1. Understanding Colonialism
Colonialism is a methodological system of oppression superimposed on the less powerful, historically rationalized by benevolent and patronizing claims of one group of people over another. A showcase of the once rampant pro-colonial fervor that engulfed many Europeans after the “discovery” is exemplified by Jules Harmand, a French proponent of colonialism, when he declared, “The basic legitimation of conquest over native peoples is the conviction of our superiority, not merely our mechanical, economic, and military superiority, but our moral superiority,” (Said, 1993, p. 17). The imperialist fervor was also present in the United States as well. The difference was the hesitation that expansion beyond our continental borders would lead to implications far more costly than their worth. I believe the implications of imperial expansion and how it has atrophied the development of many nations will clearly show why understanding colonialism is still relevant and ought to be important to political scientists.
Traditionally, the United States has invoked democratic principles such as liberty and civil rights around the world as the best possible form of government despite denying those rights to its colonial subjects. Hence, the claim of being the great global proponent of democracy has not always been genuine or true. Our interest in advancing democracy becomes more difficult when we have to account for, for example, our interventions in foreign soils where we have often deposed democratically elected leaders in favor of totalitarian ones. Contradictions such as these show how the pursuit of US global interests and the promotion of democracy would be a hard sell to some. As long as democracy is used as a tool to conquer and oppress peoples and not the tool that can liberate them, US interests will always be more difficult to achieve.
Consider that in 1800 the West claimed to have 55 percent of the world’s territory when in actuality their borders only held about 35 percent in real terms, (Said, 1993, p. 8). The percentage claimed would later grow to 85 percent by 1914 with European claims alone, not counting the emerging American territorial expansion, (Said, 1993, p. 8). Just a few decades before 1914, the United States had claimed several territories: Hawaii, Alaska, The Philippines, Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, minor outlying Pacific islands and atolls and later, the Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. Such vast claims of lands by western powers are indicative of the quantity of native peoples from all over the world that have been victimized by colonialism and its consequences. It is therefore no stretch to suggest that vast numbers of nations are still affected by colonization long after their apparent decolonization.
As a system of conquer and control, colonialism imposes on colonial subjects the establishment of institutions that organize their territories in order to secure their “governability.” Because these institutions are almost always established by the conquering metropolis, they bear the characteristics of the metropolis that establishes them thereby creating “patterns of practice” that “affect state behavior” akin to their creators, (Keohane, 2005, p. 8). Thus, institutions established by the metropolis are designed to mold the colony to the colonist political, social, and economic likeness. Hence, the Constitution of Puerto Rico for example, was approved only after it met the Congressional requirement of resembling the US Federal Constitution. The same Congressional requirement has been imposed on other US territories like Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. For reasons I will later explain, I worry that the process of colonial assimilation will lead our territories towards the same dire socio-political and economic consequences many former European colonies are experiencing should they secede from the US.
Colonial institutions are also designed to become what Edward T. Hall calls extension transferences. By extension transferences I mean institutions designed to influence subjects and shape local cultures long after their independence (or after any change to the status quo is made). The institutions established by the colonists have almost always taken the place of the process of colonization through colonial-institutional appropriation by colonial subjects, (Hall, 1981, p. 28). When appropriated culturally, politically, and economically, institutions established by a foreign power would no longer be seen or identified as foreign by the native people. From the way the legal and justice system is set up, to what subjects are taught in schools, all are designed to continue assimilation with or without close supervision from the metropolis.
In Power and Powerlessness: Queiscence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley, John Gaventa shows how the ‘foreign power’ assimilates some aspects of the culture only to shape and influence it later. The ‘foreign power’ then proceeds to impose its will by giving its subjects the sense that they have the freedom to participate and the freedom to have a choice when they in fact do not, (Gaventa, 1982, p. 63). In this sense, political and economic decisions in the colonial regime are already made because they are determined by the institutions established by the metropolis. In a sense, colonial subjects play a game not of their choosing with rules not their own. After a few generations, they appropriate and assimilate the game and the rules, and often passively play to serve their determined roles. Colonial institutions thus perpetuate the process of colonization because it shapes the conditions for eventual appropriation of native peoples.
Native appropriation further secures the conditions necessary for neocolonialism to occur should the colony secede. Neo-colonialism is hard to identify because unlike colonialism, the metropolis is seldom visibly involved. As I have alluded to before, many former colonies have fallen victim to institutional extension transference. As such, neo-colonial nations may find it difficult to create the cultural, political and economic stability required to succeed as a nation because colonial institutions have become integral to the political, economical and social framework of the country. Some institutions that are remnants of colonialism become so assimilated into the local institutional apparatus that identifying them becomes hard and making their eradication difficult.
According to Mark Bray, neocolonialism is used to describe “the control of states by external powers despite the formal appearance of constitutional independence,” (Bray, 1993, p. 334). Kwame Nkrumah, first president of Ghana, describes a neo-colony as being a “State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside,” (Bray, 1993, p. 334). One important difference between colonialism and neocolonialism however, is that under modern colonialism as practiced by the United States, the colonies have access, albeit limited, to political and legal institutions of the metropolis. Under neo-colonialism, exploitation of the powerful over the weak is not always as apparent, and the weak are usually left voiceless as their governments either betrays them or fall powerless against the metropolis. Should the nation under neocolonialism wish to address any grievance, their resources become limited and their claims hard to pursue. Only those willing to know history can bear witness to their painful colonial past and their equally painful neocolonial present.
Because their colonial condition is acknowledged by US law, the limited access to political and legal institutions provides US colonies a space where they can address their grievances. As we shall see in the following section, without adequate representation, the legal and political rights colonies have do not necessarily mean much. Because they have political and economical disadvantages, colonies are often ignored by a Federal government that is not held accountable to its possessions.
2. Colonialism & Representation
When Alexis de Toqueville visited the young US republic in 1831, he was impressed by the advancement of equality and the respect the American people had for democracy. Although he romanticized the US, he nevertheless provides us incite to how the country was then compared to how it is today, (Collins & Makowsky, 1993, p. 55). Today we have a country where people spend tens of millions of dollars in political campaigns that if elected, will only earn them a 400 thousand dollar a year position. Billions are poured every year in campaigns and lobby groups by corporations and organizations seeking to sway or buy the vote of members of Congress. Those are dollars neither the poor or average middle class person has. If the middle class ever ruled the country as Toqueville thought, those days seem long past.
Because of the important role money has in Washington, some analysts frequently argue that gaining access to the governmental decision making process by ordinary citizens and activist groups in the US has become more difficult. If it is true that political access to Washington, D.C. has become more difficult over the years, then imagine the prospects colonies have in gaining any access. For the colonies, gaining even half of the access ordinary citizens and activist groups may have is close to null considering their political and economic disadvantage. By the mere condition of being colonies, no US territory has the same kind of access in Washington, D.C. as States or their residents. The fact they are colonies means they lack real political representation. While it is true US territories can send non-voting delegates to the US House of Representatives (with the exception of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), they seldom have any real effect, (Thornburgh, 2007, p. 30). The amount of money territories have to spend on lobby firms and campaign contributions to make up for the lack of representation has become a very lucrative source of income for many in Washington over the years as well. However, because they do not have voting representation, members of Congress do not have to worry about being accountable to territorial residents or worry about winning elections because territorial residents cannot vote.
Delegates US territories send to Washington, D.C. have the right to speak on the House floor, but cannot vote for any legislation considered there. Instead, delegates rely on the good will of any voting House member willing to help their causes. Territories have to also spend millions of dollars in lobby groups and in campaign contributions to help sway members of Congress to make up for their lack of political power. As mentioned before, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is the only US territory that does not have a delegate in Congress. Instead, it sends a “resident representative” to Washington, D.C. in order to promote “good relations between the federal and territorial governments,” (Thornburgh, 2007, p. 30). Given that there is no significant difference between having a delegate officially represent a territory and having a “resident representative,” one can conclude that territories with no delegates are not missing out on much. Especially considering that all territories, whether they have delegates or not, have to spend millions of dollars on lobbying firms and campaign contributions anyway.
Territories that do have delegates can only send one elected official to represent the territory “at-large.” In the case of Puerto Rico, the largest of all US territories with almost 4 million American citizens, having just one delegate to represent the island defeats the practical purpose of representation in the House. Adding insult to injury is the fact that by virtue of living in a territory, American citizens cannot vote for the President of the United States. The denial of the right to vote for president is usually reserved for those who are either non-citizens or who have committed serious Federal crimes. It is uncanny that US citizens are being denied voting rights or any form of just representation by virtue of residing in a Territory while at the same time the US advocates the virtues of democracy around the world. While colonialism itself is a system of discrimination and exploitation, it is not the only type of discrimination territories endure. In the next section, I discuss the fact that many colonials celebrate their distinct cultures and are often treated unfairly for it. Various groups in the US view their cultural enthusiasm as either a threat or as an expression of contempt towards the US when in fact their culture is one of the few things they have left after surviving colonialism.
3. Colonialism & Culture
In Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, Samuel P. Huntington worries about the future cohesion of the US union. In the book he warns of a US identity crisis caused by the threat of immigrants who are failing to assimilate to the dominant Anglo culture. Referring to the Mexican immigration wave, Huntington writes: “As [Mexican] numbers increase, Mexican-Americans feel increasingly comfortable with their own culture and often contemptuous of the American culture, (Huntington, 2004, p. 254). He continues, “They demand recognition of their culture… [and] they increasingly call attention to and celebrate their Hispanic and Mexican past,” (Huntington, 2004, p. 255). He then cites a 1999 report that indicated how the growth of the Mexican and Hispanic community has facilitated their ‘Latinization’ and the affirmation of their heritage, (Huntington, 2004, p. 255). For colonial peoples who were conquered by a foreign super-power (a category Mexican-Americans in the Southern Border States may qualify for in many respects), their heritage, customs and their celebration may be all they have to hold on to.
Through conquest and opportunity, the acquisition of colonial possessions ensured the multi-cultural character of the United States. In many respects, our greatest strength is our multiculturalism. The diversity of cultures almost guarantees the flow of fresh and innovative ideas into our national political discussion. To ask all Americans to disregard their cultural background and assimilate into one, especially when colonial subjects did not have a choice to be part of the culture that conquered them is preposterous and obscene.
Today the United States is invigorated by the Chamorro culture of Guam, the Polynesian culture of American Samoa, the Latin culture of Puerto Rico, and the Afro-Caribbean culture of the Virgin Islands. All these territories mirror American society because they have already been heavily assimilated. The only thing residents of territories have that they can call their own is the unique culture that in essence remains somewhat intact after colonization. Although I understand the concern some have regarding identity and language, for me, being American has always been about ideology and love for our country and its peoples, not about race. The preservation of our unique individuality however, is for me also part of being American. Because I would certainly not rely on Samuel P. Huntington to preserve my distinct cultural character as a Puerto Rican, it is up to me and others to do so. Preserving a cultural distinction and celebrating it does not mean a lack of love, contempt, or disinterest for the rest of the US as some seem to believe.
Colonization has also brought us to a place where there is no way back because there is no past to go back to. Puerto Rico for example, has never been an independent country in its more than 500 years of ‘discovery.’ In the more than 100 years under US colonial rule, Puerto Ricans have become a hybrid culture of Latin and Anglo customs. Never fully included to either culture, but never fully excluded. They talk Spanish, English, and some even speak Spanglish. And yet they preserve their heritage wherever in the US (and the world) they choose to settle. Aurora Levins Morales expressed the Puerto Rican experience in her poem Child of the Americas:
I am not African. Africa is in me, but I cannot return.
I am not Taina. Taino is in me, but there is no way back.
I am not European. Europe lives in me, but I have no home there.
I am new. History made me. My first language was spanglish.
I was born at the crossroads
And I am whole, (Levins Morales, 1995, p. 79).
I would hope Samuel P. Huntington would agree that if there is any culture that has genuinely struggled with an identity problem, it has been US colonial peoples such as Puerto Ricans. With no political representation, a limited political voice, and often falling victim to Congressional neglect, US colonies continue to develop the chunk of culture that has survived the colonial experience. Their cultures have survived not only by virtue of their geographical distance from the metropolis, but by virtue of their will to not be totally ‘disappeared’ by assimilation.
4. Colonialism and the Future
In Who Rules America? Power, Politics, & Social Change, G. William Domhoff provides an analytical critique on power in the United States. In the book, Domhoff asks the reader to consider three questions: Who benefits? Who Governs? and, Who wins? (Domhoff, 2006, p. 13). While one must acknowledge that there is no singular answer for these questions, it is clear colonial peoples are not the ones who benefit, govern, or win within the US colonial system. As a colonial subject, I have witnessed how interest groups, politicians, and corporations often work to keep the status quo intact. Colonialism itself has become quite a lucrative enterprise for the few at the expense of the many.
While I believe they should not be absolved from any responsibility, these interest groups, misguided politicians, and corporations are not solely to blame for our ills or our colonial condition. I have come to the realization that there are institutions that provide the right environment that allow special interest groups, politicians, and corporations to become the kinds of problems Domhoff describes and that also perpetuate our colonial condition. Like the other US territories, my island of Puerto Rico remains a conquered land, paradoxically, out of apparent choice. After 500 years, Puerto Rico remains the oldest colony in the world. For over 100 years the island has been a US colony. For 50 years of the 100 years, Puerto Ricans have ‘chosen’ to remain a colony. But the reality is that the system is set up so territories like Puerto Rico think they have the option to choose to remain colonies or change if they wish, when in fact they do not. However, results of plebiscites and referendums always seem to favor contented colonial subservience. Not surprisingly, these results are used by members of Congress as convenient pretexts to take no action at all.
US territories also face the increasing difficulty of trying to find their place inside the US Federal system (being part of the nation and at the same time preserving their distinct culture from the rest of the country). Their lack of political power, among the many colonial disadvantages I have mentioned throughout the essay, makes them easy targets for prejudiced and misguided groups. Without equal and just representation, territories are left almost defenseless against groups pushing for the complete assimilation of their cultures and the eradication of their languages.
On the other hand, the burden of possessing colonial territories has come at a very high price for the US; costly for its democracy, and for its global credibility. The unresolved colonial relationship, primarily the Constitutional challenges of citizenship without representation shows colonialism’s incompatibility with the US democratic system. With the acquisition of overseas territories in 1898, the US departed from its practice of incorporating territories and instead experimented with various forms of colonial arrangements. Territories such as the Philippines and Cuba were prepared for independence. Other overseas territories were prepared for statehood as in the case of Hawaii, while others sadly became neo-colonies like the islands of Palau and Micronesia. Others like Guam and Puerto Rico remain ‘unincorporated’ US possessions whose citizens are Americans by birth.
It seems clear that the need to make other arrangements is long overdue. Without Congressional action, colonies are left to have apparent choices between false alternatives for a future already determined by colonialism. Establishing the right to vote in Federal elections, and providing delegates with voting rights in the House of Representatives would be a step in the right direction. To provide colonies the means to defend themselves against those who do not serve their interests, is to provide them the means to preserve their cultures while also ensuring their engagement in the national political discussion. A real process of decolonization by providing the territories the means to engage the national body politic would undoubtedly give the US the opportunity to reestablish its dignity and the dignity of its colonial subjects – a dignity that both lost during the colonial experience.
Cited Works
Bray, M. (1993) Education and the Vestiges of Colonialism: Self-Determination,
Neocolonialism and Dependency in the South Pacific. Comparative Education. Vol. 29, No. 3. retrieved 29 September 2007 from JSTOR from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici 03050068%281993% 2929% 3A3%3C333%3AEATVOC%3E2.0.CO%3V2-7
Collins R. & Makowsky M. (1993) The Last Gentleman: Alexis de Toqueville. The Discovery of
Society. Fifth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Domhoff, G. W. (2006) Who Rules America? Power, Politics, & Social Change. Fifth Edtion.
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Gaventa, J. (1982) Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian
Valley. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Hall, E. T. (1989) Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books.
Huntington, S. P. (2004) Who Are We? The Challenges of America’s National Identity. New
York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
Keohane, R. O. (2005) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political
Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Levins Morales, A. (1995) Child of the Americas. Boricuas: Influential Puerto Rican Writings
– An Anthology. Edited by Roberto Santiago. New York: The Random House Publishing Group.
Thornburgh, D. (2007) Puerto Rico’s Future: A Time to Decide. Washington, D.C.: Center for
Strategic and International Studies Press.
Said, E. W. (1993) Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books
viernes, 18 de marzo de 2011
To Be or Not to Be
By Geraldo Rivera
Published March 17, 2011
Fox News Latino
On a flight back to New York from San Juan a couple months ago, I chanced to sit next to Richard L. Carrión, the urbane and savvy man who runs and owns a hunk of Banco Popular, the big Puerto Rican-based commercial bank, and its related businesses, and also helps steer the International Olympic Committee. After he diplomatically answered my several questions about prospects for banks like his during this current real estate nightmare, we talked about politics; specially, the future status of Puerto Rico.
Whether Puerto Rico becomes a state or an independent country, or remains a commonwealth, which is like being a territory or a colony with benefits, is the perennial Holy Grail of Puerto Rican politics, coming up daily during heated conversations that divide Puerto Rican families.
Mr. Carrión described a recent public meeting he had in Puerto Rico with Massachusetts senator John Kerry. On a fact-finding mission, the senator asked Mr. Carrión his opinion on the status question, to which Mr. Carrión told me he answered essentially, ‘Why ask me, when we both know it is the United States which will decide.’
That informed cynicism is the prevailing attitude among members of the island's educated elite, certainly those I’ve spoken with lately. Having lived through referendums in 1967, 1993, and 1998, all of which opted to continue the status quo, they believe the island is stuck in that melancholy middle. It may often feel like it’s a different country from the United States, a Spanish-dominant Latino country. Still, virtually no one there wants to abandon either his or her U.S. citizenship or the enormous federal largesse that flows from Washington to San Juan at the rate of about $22 billion annually in aid, federal tax breaks and entitlements, according a current book, ‘Pay to the Order of Puerto Rico: The Cost of Dependence.’
With scant eagerness for the fiscal and political uncertainty of separation from the world’s richest and most powerful nation, ‘independence’ is also a non-starter, generally winning less than three or four percent of the vote in recent elections.
The disadvantages of commonwealth, like the fact island residents can’t vote in U.S. presidential elections or that their own elected representative to the U.S. Congress has no vote, seem relatively minor concerns compared to independence and being set adrift on an uncertain Caribbean Seawhere pirates like Fidel Castro still roam.
On the other hand, statehood is also a daunting prospect, especially to the socially conservative old timers. Folks like my tías and tíos worry that if Puerto Rico became a state they would be made to feel second-class, as Spanish is inevitably subordinated to English and Puerto Rico is remade into a kind of Nevada or Mississippi with salsa.
Stuck with the majority’s inability to make the hard choice between statehood or independence, there is this feeling among many that since the island is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States anyway, then unless and until Congress takes the lead and specifically pushes everyone down the road to Puerto Rican statehood by agreeing out front to recognize whenever islanders decide, then Puerto Rico’s ambiguous, corrosive commonwealth status will continue forever.
But a federal task force created during the last days of the Clinton administration, sustained under President George W. Bush and expanded under President Obama has finally issued a comprehensive report that seeks to empower the residents of Puerto Rico to chart their own course when it comes to status, while at the same time calling on Congress to honor that result— an enormous, if not impossible challenge.
Released Wednesday, under the ‘President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico Status’ plan, it would create a two-stage referendum on the island: First, a vote on whether residents wanted to remain part of the United States; then, if they voted ‘yes,’ on whether Puerto Rico would be a full-fledged state or continue as a commonwealth.
Or, in the highly unlikely possibility they voted for independence, then whether they wanted independence with continuing legal ties to the United States (like Britain and its former colonies) or as a nation completely separate and apart.
Puerto Rico’s Republican governor and statehood advocate Luis Fortuño is committed to holding the referendum by the end of his term in 2012, but because change is scary, I fear Puerto Rico’s voters will choose the path of least resistance, maintaining commonwealth and the status quo as step-child in the family of nations.
I’ve been part of the impassioned, if circular conversation on status since 1969, when my involvement with the radical Young Lords, a New York-based Puerto Rican activist group, helped steer me toward advocating the island’s independence. Better the pride of independence than continuing the century-old welfare colony relationship that has crippled Puerto Rican society and wrecked havoc on families.
But better still would be statehood; if America will have us, which I doubt. There is no way a Republican-dominated House will allow the inclusion in the Union of a state of approximately four million mostly poor, mostly Spanish-speaking people who could then immediately elect two Democratic senators and four or five Democratic congressmen.
Can you imagine that congressional debate even happening given the raging ill-will toward anything that reminds people of Latino immigrants or the already burgeoning U.S. Hispanic population?
No, I fear the entire federal task force effort concerning Puerto Rico’s status is nothing more than another wordy, though worthwhile, exercise in futility. The powers that be in Washington have zero real interest in a fifty-first state; not us anyway, not now. Still, if Puerto Ricans did vote for statehood, sign me up for the fight to help them get it.
Estatus: el próximo paso
Por Pedro R. Pierluisi – Comisionado Residente
Publicado Originalmente: (Columna El Vocero pag.#30)
La discusión del tema del estatus permea el debate público en nuestra Isla a todo nivel. Al abordar este tema tenemos que partir de la premisa de que hay unos hechos incuestionables que rigen los caminos de Puerto Rico. Es un hecho que al día de hoy ya nadie disputa el derecho inalienable que tiene nuestro pueblo de escoger su destino político. También es obvio que de cara al futuro hay tres alternativas dignas al estatus actual de la Isla: la estadidad, la libre asociación y la independencia. Y todos conocemos que la única manera de cambiar nuestro estatus es logrando que nuestro pueblo reclame el cambio y que el Congreso de los Estados Unidos lo conceda.
Antes de las pasadas elecciones el Gobernador Luis Fortuño y todo el liderato del Partido Nuevo Progresista nos comprometimos a buscar el aval del Congreso para celebrar un plebiscito en la Isla. Asimismo, propusimos que en caso de no obtener ese aval en un término razonable de tiempo consultaríamos directamente al pueblo. Cabe recordar que la última vez que nuestro pueblo tuvo la oportunidad de expresar su sentir sobre este centenario problema fue hace más de doce años.
Luego de que la Cámara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos aprobara contundentemente el proyecto de ley H.R. 2499 que autoriza que el Gobierno de Puerto Rico celebre un proceso plebiscitario en la Isla, de que los dos líderes indiscutibles del Senado federal en la evaluación de este tema, los Senadores Bingaman y Murkowski, avalaran las cuatro opciones de estatus contenidas en el H.R. 2499, y de que la Casa Blanca hiciera lo propio, sólo nos resta llevar a cabo un plebiscito o referéndum que nos encamine debidamente hacia nuestro destino político final.
Aunque son muchas las alternativas que tenemos a la hora de decidir cómo consultar a nuestro pueblo, es importante identificar y discutir las bondades de algunas de las opciones que pueden dirigirnos hacia la solución de este divisorio conflicto.
En primer lugar, pudiéramos celebrar un plebiscito que presente dos preguntas a nuestros votantes bajo las mismas premisas del H.R. 2499:
¿Quiere que Puerto Rico mantenga su estatus actual?
¿Cuál de las siguientes opciones de cambio de estatus prefiere: Estadidad, Libre Asociación, o Independencia?
Esta posible consulta tiene el atractivo de que todas las opciones de estatus se encuentran en la misma papeleta, por lo cual nadie pudiera cuestionar su validez y el resultado sería irrefutable. Más aún, hacer ambas preguntas en una sola consulta le ahorraría tiempo y dinero a nuestro pueblo.
Por otro lado, se le puede pedir al pueblo que seleccione entre las cuatro opciones de estatus reconocidas tanto por el Congreso como por la Casa Blanca: la estadidad, el estatus actual, la libre asociación y la independencia. En este posible plebiscito tampoco habría lugar para reclamos de exclusión y si cualquiera de las opciones recibiera el voto mayoritario de nuestro pueblo, el mensaje al Congreso no pudiera ser más claro.
De igual forma, formular preguntas sobre aspectos medulares de nuestra relación con los Estados Unidos sería un ejercicio muy válido. Por ejemplo, nuestros votantes pudieran contestar cualquiera de las siguientes interrogantes:
¿Quiere ser ciudadano americano con los mismos derechos y obligaciones que tienen los ciudadanos americanos que residen en los estados?
¿Quiere que Puerto Rico tenga una unión permanente con los Estados Unidos?
¿Quiere poder votar por el Presidente de los Estados Unidos?
¿Quiere tener representación con voz y voto en el Congreso?
Cada una de estas preguntas es perfectamente legítima y su contestación le permitiría al Congreso conocer de primera mano las aspiraciones de nuestro pueblo.
Por último, pudiéramos llevar a cabo un referéndum con el propósito de que nuestro pueblo le reclame al Congreso que nos ofrezca opciones de estatus que no sean territoriales o coloniales y que puedan darle punto final al dilema que hemos enfrentado desde el comienzo de nuestra relación con los Estados Unidos. A la altura del siglo 21 sería prácticamente imposible que un reclamo de esta naturaleza cayera en oídos sordos en el Congreso.
Todas estas posibles consultas serían justas y democráticas, y adelantarían la causa de todos los que queremos lograr que Puerto Rico tenga un estatus político digno y permanente. Asumir nuestra responsabilidad innata de reclamar hacia dónde nos queremos dirigir como pueblo es algo que todos sabemos que tenemos que hacer. Opciones tenemos de más. Hacer nada no es una opción. Consultar a nuestro pueblo es el próximo paso.
Publicado Originalmente: (Columna El Vocero pag.#30)
La discusión del tema del estatus permea el debate público en nuestra Isla a todo nivel. Al abordar este tema tenemos que partir de la premisa de que hay unos hechos incuestionables que rigen los caminos de Puerto Rico. Es un hecho que al día de hoy ya nadie disputa el derecho inalienable que tiene nuestro pueblo de escoger su destino político. También es obvio que de cara al futuro hay tres alternativas dignas al estatus actual de la Isla: la estadidad, la libre asociación y la independencia. Y todos conocemos que la única manera de cambiar nuestro estatus es logrando que nuestro pueblo reclame el cambio y que el Congreso de los Estados Unidos lo conceda.
Antes de las pasadas elecciones el Gobernador Luis Fortuño y todo el liderato del Partido Nuevo Progresista nos comprometimos a buscar el aval del Congreso para celebrar un plebiscito en la Isla. Asimismo, propusimos que en caso de no obtener ese aval en un término razonable de tiempo consultaríamos directamente al pueblo. Cabe recordar que la última vez que nuestro pueblo tuvo la oportunidad de expresar su sentir sobre este centenario problema fue hace más de doce años.
Luego de que la Cámara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos aprobara contundentemente el proyecto de ley H.R. 2499 que autoriza que el Gobierno de Puerto Rico celebre un proceso plebiscitario en la Isla, de que los dos líderes indiscutibles del Senado federal en la evaluación de este tema, los Senadores Bingaman y Murkowski, avalaran las cuatro opciones de estatus contenidas en el H.R. 2499, y de que la Casa Blanca hiciera lo propio, sólo nos resta llevar a cabo un plebiscito o referéndum que nos encamine debidamente hacia nuestro destino político final.
Aunque son muchas las alternativas que tenemos a la hora de decidir cómo consultar a nuestro pueblo, es importante identificar y discutir las bondades de algunas de las opciones que pueden dirigirnos hacia la solución de este divisorio conflicto.
En primer lugar, pudiéramos celebrar un plebiscito que presente dos preguntas a nuestros votantes bajo las mismas premisas del H.R. 2499:
¿Quiere que Puerto Rico mantenga su estatus actual?
¿Cuál de las siguientes opciones de cambio de estatus prefiere: Estadidad, Libre Asociación, o Independencia?
Esta posible consulta tiene el atractivo de que todas las opciones de estatus se encuentran en la misma papeleta, por lo cual nadie pudiera cuestionar su validez y el resultado sería irrefutable. Más aún, hacer ambas preguntas en una sola consulta le ahorraría tiempo y dinero a nuestro pueblo.
Por otro lado, se le puede pedir al pueblo que seleccione entre las cuatro opciones de estatus reconocidas tanto por el Congreso como por la Casa Blanca: la estadidad, el estatus actual, la libre asociación y la independencia. En este posible plebiscito tampoco habría lugar para reclamos de exclusión y si cualquiera de las opciones recibiera el voto mayoritario de nuestro pueblo, el mensaje al Congreso no pudiera ser más claro.
De igual forma, formular preguntas sobre aspectos medulares de nuestra relación con los Estados Unidos sería un ejercicio muy válido. Por ejemplo, nuestros votantes pudieran contestar cualquiera de las siguientes interrogantes:
¿Quiere ser ciudadano americano con los mismos derechos y obligaciones que tienen los ciudadanos americanos que residen en los estados?
¿Quiere que Puerto Rico tenga una unión permanente con los Estados Unidos?
¿Quiere poder votar por el Presidente de los Estados Unidos?
¿Quiere tener representación con voz y voto en el Congreso?
Cada una de estas preguntas es perfectamente legítima y su contestación le permitiría al Congreso conocer de primera mano las aspiraciones de nuestro pueblo.
Por último, pudiéramos llevar a cabo un referéndum con el propósito de que nuestro pueblo le reclame al Congreso que nos ofrezca opciones de estatus que no sean territoriales o coloniales y que puedan darle punto final al dilema que hemos enfrentado desde el comienzo de nuestra relación con los Estados Unidos. A la altura del siglo 21 sería prácticamente imposible que un reclamo de esta naturaleza cayera en oídos sordos en el Congreso.
Todas estas posibles consultas serían justas y democráticas, y adelantarían la causa de todos los que queremos lograr que Puerto Rico tenga un estatus político digno y permanente. Asumir nuestra responsabilidad innata de reclamar hacia dónde nos queremos dirigir como pueblo es algo que todos sabemos que tenemos que hacer. Opciones tenemos de más. Hacer nada no es una opción. Consultar a nuestro pueblo es el próximo paso.
domingo, 27 de febrero de 2011
Luis Gutiérrez: An enemy of Puerto Rico
By Carlos Romero Barceló
Edition: February 24, 2011 | Volume: 39 | No: 7
The vicious lies, distortion of facts and unwarranted insults made by one of Chicago’s congressional representatives against Puerto Ricans, our police and Judge Fusté, chief justice of the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico, demonstrate, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Luis Gutiérrez is an enemy of the people of Puerto Rico. In his desire to demean and criticize the present governor of Puerto Rico and the pro-statehood administration, he succeeds in insulting Puerto Rico, its elected leaders and the current government.
The U.S. District Court’s chief judge is one of the best and most prestigious federal judges we have ever had in Puerto Rico. His decision in the Puerto Rico Bar Association case was a very just, fair and legally unassailable decision. The president of the Bar Association was sent to jail for refusing to abide by the rulings and orders of the court, not for speaking out against the court as Gutiérrez claims.
Gutiérrez has been in politics and in Congress for a considerable amount of time. He has shown, throughout his years in public life, that he is sufficiently astute, malicious and knowledgeable of public communications to know that a nationwide statement against a municipal or state administration is heard mostly by people who aren’t knowledgeable about local politics. As a result, the insult or criticism against an administration is perceived as one against the city or the state itself. I have no doubt that he knew his lies and vicious insults would be perceived and understood by most people who heard him as statements against Puerto Rico and its people, who allegedly tolerate the behavior and abuse he misrepresented in his short speech.
Yes, he undoubtedly knew how his speech would be perceived, but he didn’t and doesn’t give a damn. His desire to misrepresent and criticize Puerto Rico’s governor and the present pro-statehood administration is so intense that the collateral damage he knew he would inflict never worried him.
Therefore, it is important people know how Luis Gutiérrez feels about Puerto Rico and how he feels about the democratic & civil rights of the four million U.S. citizens whose home is Puerto Rico.
In the first place, Luis Gutiérrez wasn’t born in Puerto Rico, doesn’t live in Puerto Rico and has made arrangements to be buried in Chicago. His family lives in Chicago and his children are, or were, probably educated in Chicago and live in the mainland U.S.
As a resident of Chicago, he has participated actively in Chicago politics and voted in local, state and nationwide elections. He is an elected representative to Congress from the state of Illinois, and he campaigned and voted for Barack Obama. He has enjoyed, enjoys and will continue to enjoy his right to vote for the president of our nation. Not only does he enjoy the right to vote for the president of our nation and the right to vote for himself and for the two senators of Illinois, but he also represents his district and votes in all matters and legislation brought forth in the U.S. Congress.
However, although he enjoys all of our nation’s voting rights, including the right to be duly represented, he advocates and works continuously to deny the same rights to the four million U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico. What moral authority does Luis Gutiérrez have to criticize and insult the people of Puerto Rico for alleged violations of civil rights on our island, when he consistently and openly opposes the right to vote for president of our nation and the right to vote and elect representatives and senators to the U.S. Congress for the four million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico?
One reason he opposes our right to vote for our president, and our right to vote for and elect representatives and senators to Congress, is that he now poses as a Puerto Rican voting representative, capable of helping individuals, corporations and institutions from Puerto Rico who have an interest in legislation before Congress, or who are interested in obtaining funds or contracts from federal agencies. As a result of this fact he has more power in Congress and with federal agencies than with the disenfranchised nonvoting member of Congress from Puerto Rico, he goes to Puerto Rico to raise funds for his campaigns and stays at the most luxurious hotels in Puerto Rico with all expenses paid.
If Puerto Rico were granted the right to vote for president and the right to elect voting representatives and senators, Gutiérrez would lose all or most of the funds he now collects in Puerto Rico. He now is obviously supported and financed by those Puerto Ricans who want independence and those whose financial and economic interests lie with the present territorial status of disenfranchisement.
In his five-minute speech, Gutiérrez claims the Puerto Rico police brutally attacked University of Puerto Rico (UPR) students who were “merely exercising their right to protest the university’s increase in tuition fees.”
That is nothing further from the truth.
In the first place, the UPR students weren’t merely making use of their freedom of speech and their right to protest. The students who were leading the protest had prevented—by force, threats and intimidation—the students who were opposed to the so-called “strike” from expressing their views and carrying out a secret vote (for or against the strike). Once the decision to “strike” (as the students and press called it) was made, they were joined by some union leaders, professors and outside agitators, many of whom were masked, and prevented by force, bullying and threats the students who wanted to study and the teachers who wanted to teach, from entering the university. Those who managed to enter were forcibly, even by use of smoke bombs, driven out of their classrooms.
These UPR students not only prevented the majority of students and teachers from conducting their classes, but also threatened and insulted those who tried to get into the university. The protesting students also destroyed and vandalized university property and, on one occasion, set fire to a university building where chemicals in the building could have exploded if the fire hadn’t been extinguished in time.
The police behaved with extraordinary restraint in spite of the fact they were continuously provoked, spit upon, offered dog food, pushed and insulted. During all the days of “strike,” very few physical encounters occurred and those that did were the result of protesters’ refusals to be arrested when they were told they were under arrest because they were destroying property or otherwise violating the law, and when they pushed or otherwise physically provoked the police. As a matter of fact, several police were injured.
I sincerely doubt any police will be found guilty of civil-rights violations by federal or state courts, if any police are indeed indicted for any such violations.
Yes, the truth of what happened during the UPR protests is completely different from what Gutiérrez claimed in his Feb. 16 speech. Gutiérrez knowingly lied and insulted the people of Puerto Rico. I am sure if the issue of his speech were to be discussed widely in the Puerto Rico media, Luis Gutiérrez would be declared a “persona non grata” by a large majority of Puerto Ricans.
With friends like Gutiérrez, who needs enemies?
Carlos Romero Barceló is a two-term former governor of Puerto Rico (1977-84), a two-term former resident commissioner (1993-2000) and a two-term former mayor of San Juan (1969-78). He was president of the New Progressive Party for 11 years. He is now a consultant involved in real estate, doing business as CRB Realty. His email address is rbarcelo@prtc.net.
Edition: February 24, 2011 | Volume: 39 | No: 7
The vicious lies, distortion of facts and unwarranted insults made by one of Chicago’s congressional representatives against Puerto Ricans, our police and Judge Fusté, chief justice of the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico, demonstrate, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Luis Gutiérrez is an enemy of the people of Puerto Rico. In his desire to demean and criticize the present governor of Puerto Rico and the pro-statehood administration, he succeeds in insulting Puerto Rico, its elected leaders and the current government.
The U.S. District Court’s chief judge is one of the best and most prestigious federal judges we have ever had in Puerto Rico. His decision in the Puerto Rico Bar Association case was a very just, fair and legally unassailable decision. The president of the Bar Association was sent to jail for refusing to abide by the rulings and orders of the court, not for speaking out against the court as Gutiérrez claims.
Gutiérrez has been in politics and in Congress for a considerable amount of time. He has shown, throughout his years in public life, that he is sufficiently astute, malicious and knowledgeable of public communications to know that a nationwide statement against a municipal or state administration is heard mostly by people who aren’t knowledgeable about local politics. As a result, the insult or criticism against an administration is perceived as one against the city or the state itself. I have no doubt that he knew his lies and vicious insults would be perceived and understood by most people who heard him as statements against Puerto Rico and its people, who allegedly tolerate the behavior and abuse he misrepresented in his short speech.
Yes, he undoubtedly knew how his speech would be perceived, but he didn’t and doesn’t give a damn. His desire to misrepresent and criticize Puerto Rico’s governor and the present pro-statehood administration is so intense that the collateral damage he knew he would inflict never worried him.
Therefore, it is important people know how Luis Gutiérrez feels about Puerto Rico and how he feels about the democratic & civil rights of the four million U.S. citizens whose home is Puerto Rico.
In the first place, Luis Gutiérrez wasn’t born in Puerto Rico, doesn’t live in Puerto Rico and has made arrangements to be buried in Chicago. His family lives in Chicago and his children are, or were, probably educated in Chicago and live in the mainland U.S.
As a resident of Chicago, he has participated actively in Chicago politics and voted in local, state and nationwide elections. He is an elected representative to Congress from the state of Illinois, and he campaigned and voted for Barack Obama. He has enjoyed, enjoys and will continue to enjoy his right to vote for the president of our nation. Not only does he enjoy the right to vote for the president of our nation and the right to vote for himself and for the two senators of Illinois, but he also represents his district and votes in all matters and legislation brought forth in the U.S. Congress.
However, although he enjoys all of our nation’s voting rights, including the right to be duly represented, he advocates and works continuously to deny the same rights to the four million U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico. What moral authority does Luis Gutiérrez have to criticize and insult the people of Puerto Rico for alleged violations of civil rights on our island, when he consistently and openly opposes the right to vote for president of our nation and the right to vote and elect representatives and senators to the U.S. Congress for the four million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico?
One reason he opposes our right to vote for our president, and our right to vote for and elect representatives and senators to Congress, is that he now poses as a Puerto Rican voting representative, capable of helping individuals, corporations and institutions from Puerto Rico who have an interest in legislation before Congress, or who are interested in obtaining funds or contracts from federal agencies. As a result of this fact he has more power in Congress and with federal agencies than with the disenfranchised nonvoting member of Congress from Puerto Rico, he goes to Puerto Rico to raise funds for his campaigns and stays at the most luxurious hotels in Puerto Rico with all expenses paid.
If Puerto Rico were granted the right to vote for president and the right to elect voting representatives and senators, Gutiérrez would lose all or most of the funds he now collects in Puerto Rico. He now is obviously supported and financed by those Puerto Ricans who want independence and those whose financial and economic interests lie with the present territorial status of disenfranchisement.
In his five-minute speech, Gutiérrez claims the Puerto Rico police brutally attacked University of Puerto Rico (UPR) students who were “merely exercising their right to protest the university’s increase in tuition fees.”
That is nothing further from the truth.
In the first place, the UPR students weren’t merely making use of their freedom of speech and their right to protest. The students who were leading the protest had prevented—by force, threats and intimidation—the students who were opposed to the so-called “strike” from expressing their views and carrying out a secret vote (for or against the strike). Once the decision to “strike” (as the students and press called it) was made, they were joined by some union leaders, professors and outside agitators, many of whom were masked, and prevented by force, bullying and threats the students who wanted to study and the teachers who wanted to teach, from entering the university. Those who managed to enter were forcibly, even by use of smoke bombs, driven out of their classrooms.
These UPR students not only prevented the majority of students and teachers from conducting their classes, but also threatened and insulted those who tried to get into the university. The protesting students also destroyed and vandalized university property and, on one occasion, set fire to a university building where chemicals in the building could have exploded if the fire hadn’t been extinguished in time.
The police behaved with extraordinary restraint in spite of the fact they were continuously provoked, spit upon, offered dog food, pushed and insulted. During all the days of “strike,” very few physical encounters occurred and those that did were the result of protesters’ refusals to be arrested when they were told they were under arrest because they were destroying property or otherwise violating the law, and when they pushed or otherwise physically provoked the police. As a matter of fact, several police were injured.
I sincerely doubt any police will be found guilty of civil-rights violations by federal or state courts, if any police are indeed indicted for any such violations.
Yes, the truth of what happened during the UPR protests is completely different from what Gutiérrez claimed in his Feb. 16 speech. Gutiérrez knowingly lied and insulted the people of Puerto Rico. I am sure if the issue of his speech were to be discussed widely in the Puerto Rico media, Luis Gutiérrez would be declared a “persona non grata” by a large majority of Puerto Ricans.
With friends like Gutiérrez, who needs enemies?
Carlos Romero Barceló is a two-term former governor of Puerto Rico (1977-84), a two-term former resident commissioner (1993-2000) and a two-term former mayor of San Juan (1969-78). He was president of the New Progressive Party for 11 years. He is now a consultant involved in real estate, doing business as CRB Realty. His email address is rbarcelo@prtc.net.
jueves, 17 de febrero de 2011
Floor Statement in Response to Remarks of Congressman Luis Gutierrez Regarding Puerto Rico
Mr./Madame Speaker:
I rise to address the chamber this morning with disappointment, sadness, and a deep resolve to set the record straight. I am compelled to respond to remarks delivered yesterday on this floor by my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, in which he harshly criticized the duly-elected government of Puerto Rico, the officers who serve honorably in its police force, and the chief judge of the U.S. district court for the District of Puerto Rico. The speech was inappropriate and insulting to the people of Puerto Rico. I hope such action will not be repeated. But if it is, make no mistake: I will return to this floor again to defend my constituents—and the government they chose in free and fair elections—from all unwarranted attacks. I will rise then in the same capacity that I rise now: as Puerto Rico’s only elected representative in Congress and the only member of this chamber who can make any claim to speak on behalf of the Island’s nearly four million American citizens. I will fight for my people because it is my privilege, my honor, and my duty to do so.
To compare Puerto Rico to an authoritarian country is beyond the pale. It demeans not merely my constituents, but also the millions of men and women around the world who suffer under real dictatorships, who are truly oppressed, and who lack the dignity that comes only with genuine freedom. Puerto Rico is a rich and vibrant democracy, with strong institutions, governed by the rule of law. Fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution—including the right to free speech, free assembly and due process of law—apply fully in Puerto Rico. So does federal civil rights law. This is not to suggest that violations of individual liberties never take place in Puerto Rico. On occasion they may, just as they do in every jurisdiction. And I would be the first person to condemn such conduct if it occurs. But, in Puerto Rico, unlike in a dictatorship, there are legal remedies available to citizens who claim to have been deprived of their rights. Those who fail to grasp this basic distinction do not understand Puerto Rico or appreciate its strengths.
Moreover, I believe it is wrong for a member of this body to insult a federal judge simply because that judge ruled in a way the member finds objectionable. To use an enlarged photo of that judge as a prop is, in my view, particularly unfortunate. Such theatrics undermine, rather than strengthen, the argument being made. Judge Fusté, a man who has devoted over 25 years of his life to public service, does not deserve such treatment.
Yesterday, a great disservice was done to the good name and reputation of the people of Puerto Rico. I regret that it occurred. I hope—and expect—that it will not happen again.
I yield back the balance of my time.
I rise to address the chamber this morning with disappointment, sadness, and a deep resolve to set the record straight. I am compelled to respond to remarks delivered yesterday on this floor by my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, in which he harshly criticized the duly-elected government of Puerto Rico, the officers who serve honorably in its police force, and the chief judge of the U.S. district court for the District of Puerto Rico. The speech was inappropriate and insulting to the people of Puerto Rico. I hope such action will not be repeated. But if it is, make no mistake: I will return to this floor again to defend my constituents—and the government they chose in free and fair elections—from all unwarranted attacks. I will rise then in the same capacity that I rise now: as Puerto Rico’s only elected representative in Congress and the only member of this chamber who can make any claim to speak on behalf of the Island’s nearly four million American citizens. I will fight for my people because it is my privilege, my honor, and my duty to do so.
To compare Puerto Rico to an authoritarian country is beyond the pale. It demeans not merely my constituents, but also the millions of men and women around the world who suffer under real dictatorships, who are truly oppressed, and who lack the dignity that comes only with genuine freedom. Puerto Rico is a rich and vibrant democracy, with strong institutions, governed by the rule of law. Fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution—including the right to free speech, free assembly and due process of law—apply fully in Puerto Rico. So does federal civil rights law. This is not to suggest that violations of individual liberties never take place in Puerto Rico. On occasion they may, just as they do in every jurisdiction. And I would be the first person to condemn such conduct if it occurs. But, in Puerto Rico, unlike in a dictatorship, there are legal remedies available to citizens who claim to have been deprived of their rights. Those who fail to grasp this basic distinction do not understand Puerto Rico or appreciate its strengths.
Moreover, I believe it is wrong for a member of this body to insult a federal judge simply because that judge ruled in a way the member finds objectionable. To use an enlarged photo of that judge as a prop is, in my view, particularly unfortunate. Such theatrics undermine, rather than strengthen, the argument being made. Judge Fusté, a man who has devoted over 25 years of his life to public service, does not deserve such treatment.
Yesterday, a great disservice was done to the good name and reputation of the people of Puerto Rico. I regret that it occurred. I hope—and expect—that it will not happen again.
I yield back the balance of my time.
martes, 4 de enero de 2011
Pierluisi se muestra seguro para el nuevo Congreso
Se manifiesta preparado para los retos
WASHINGTON, DC- El Comisionado Residente en Washington, Pedro Pierluisi, jurará mañana a un nuevo Congreso y aseguró sentirse preparado para enfrentar los retos que se aproximan en estos próximos dos años.
La ceremonia de juramentación a todos los miembros del Congreso 112 se llevará a cabo mañana en horas de la tarde por el nuevo “Speaker” cameral, John Boehner.
“Estoy listo para continuar trabajando por Puerto Rico en este nuevo Congreso. Mi compromiso es trabajar con la mayor pasión, determinación e intensidad por el bien de los puertorriqueños”, expresó Pierluisi.
El Comisionado Residente reconoció que bajo el liderato republicano en la Cámara de Representantes enfrentará mayores retos, como lo son defender a Puerto Rico de cualquier posibilidad de recortes a asignaciones realizadas durante el Congreso anterior, específicamente en el área de la Reforma de Salud y de la Ley ARRA, que significan miles de millones de dólares en fondos federales adicionales para la Isla.
“En el pasado Congreso di las batallas necesarias por lograr un trato justo para Puerto Rico en todas las áreas y en todas las piezas de legislación que se presentaron. De esa forma obtuvimos grandes logros para la Isla en las áreas de economía, salud, seguridad, infraestructura, y educación, entre otros. Durante el Congreso que inicia mañana mi compromiso es aún mayor. Estaré atento al impacto de toda legislación sobre Puerto Rico y reclamaré en todo momento nuestros derechos como ciudadanos americanos”, sostuvo Pierluisi.
WASHINGTON, DC- El Comisionado Residente en Washington, Pedro Pierluisi, jurará mañana a un nuevo Congreso y aseguró sentirse preparado para enfrentar los retos que se aproximan en estos próximos dos años.
La ceremonia de juramentación a todos los miembros del Congreso 112 se llevará a cabo mañana en horas de la tarde por el nuevo “Speaker” cameral, John Boehner.
“Estoy listo para continuar trabajando por Puerto Rico en este nuevo Congreso. Mi compromiso es trabajar con la mayor pasión, determinación e intensidad por el bien de los puertorriqueños”, expresó Pierluisi.
El Comisionado Residente reconoció que bajo el liderato republicano en la Cámara de Representantes enfrentará mayores retos, como lo son defender a Puerto Rico de cualquier posibilidad de recortes a asignaciones realizadas durante el Congreso anterior, específicamente en el área de la Reforma de Salud y de la Ley ARRA, que significan miles de millones de dólares en fondos federales adicionales para la Isla.
“En el pasado Congreso di las batallas necesarias por lograr un trato justo para Puerto Rico en todas las áreas y en todas las piezas de legislación que se presentaron. De esa forma obtuvimos grandes logros para la Isla en las áreas de economía, salud, seguridad, infraestructura, y educación, entre otros. Durante el Congreso que inicia mañana mi compromiso es aún mayor. Estaré atento al impacto de toda legislación sobre Puerto Rico y reclamaré en todo momento nuestros derechos como ciudadanos americanos”, sostuvo Pierluisi.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)