I am a Chamorro of Northern Marianas descent and have had the opportunity to see and spent some quality time in our Northern Islands. As the special assistant to the late Mayor of the Northern Islands, the Honorable Joseph Ogumoro, I have had the opportunity to see and walk on these beautiful islands.
I am happy that we are now realizing that the CNMI has 14 islands, ten of which are north of Saipan. When I was with the Northern Islands Mayor’s Office, I tried to bring public attention to the fact that residents of Anatahan, Alamagan, Pagan, and Agrigan live in deplorable conditions and need basic infrastructure to improve their quality of life. There is no running water, no electricity, no schools, no health facilities, no ports, and no infrastructure to make daily living safe and sustainable. The Northern Islands are probably the last places on this planet that still flies the U.S. flag despite their living conditions being worse than most Third World countries. Can the federal government do something about this? Can the proponents of the monument, including Pew, allocate equal amount of time and resources to help address these inhumane conditions?
The proposal to designate a significant amount of the CNMI’s Northern Islands natural resources as a marine monument is inappropriate, untimely, a circumvention of the democratic process, and an affront to the people of the CNMI. The local proponents are helping Pew carry out their agenda by encouraging the use of the Antiquities Act of 1906. This old federal law authorized the U.S. president to singlehandedly designate any federal public lands as national monuments to cut through bureaucratic impasse and protect vital natural areas under imminent threat. Apparently, the Act was motivated by the destruction and looting of archaeological sites in the late 1800s and archaeologists were worried that “historical sites were being plundered and the artifacts disappearing into private collections or overseas museums.”
The 115,000 square miles of submerged land proposed for the monument is not under any imminent threat and the issue of submerged land ownership is still emerging, thus inappropriate to use the Antiquities Act. There are mainly three types of threats that I am aware of that may adversely affect or cause imminent danger to the Northern Islands. These include pollution caused by human presence, biological, and geologic and/or other natural catastrophe.
Few people, if any, will object to “conservation” but most disagree with the mechanism or tool proposed to be used, the amount of misinformation being disseminated regarding imminent threats to the area, and the permanent stripping of local control over limited resources. Not supporting the current monument proposal does not mean that we do not support conservation. To the contrary, if the area proposed for the monument is under imminent threat, and designating the area as a monument will protect it from further damage, I will be the first one in line to support such a move. But in the absence of any urgency, let us not jump the gun and deprive our future generation the ability to decide for themselves what they want to do with the limited resources. This is also where the proponent’s use of our young children in their crusade is inappropriate.
To date, I have not seen any evidence to show that human presence is causing any type of damage to the area. Second, the threats from “crown of thorns” or other biological presence have not been documented either. Third, the designation of the area as a monument is not going to stop volcanoes, tsunami, earthquakes, typhoons, or other natural disasters from happening. To suggest otherwise is outright ludicrous.
Further, if you look closely in the proposal you will see that the proposed monument is not going to get any direct federal funding but a possible reprogramming of limited funds from other federal parks accounts. With only three months left in the Bush administration, a projected budget deficit of over $600 billion, and the close to $1 trillion bail out of the Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, AIG, bank rescue, and other Wall Street problems, there is no room for additional appropriation for the CNMI National Marine Monument. The federal government will, in effect, take possession of our land and invest almost nothing in it in return other than the initial publicity stunt from their “Blue Legacy” project.
I reviewed the Pew-funded economic report by Dr. Tom Iverson where he calculated that a marine monument would produce up to 400 new jobs, generate $10 million in new annual spending, and $14 million in sales. Unfortunately, the report is full of “assumptions” including their findings that there are insufficient data in the CNMI to make any reliable predictions or forecasts only to make economic projections based on these same questionable data. Further, efforts were made to “compare” with other marine monuments. Again, the jurisdictions and circumstances used in the comparisons are different and the existing state infrastructures at those jurisdictions are different. The report in my opinion is an excellent exercise within the circles of academia but in reality, nothing more than a pipe dream.
As a matter of principle, I do not agree giving up local control of our limited resources. However, if federalization is to occur, the U.S. Congress is the most appropriate body to act on this matter as more time will be available for local participation and federal funding can be appropriated to develop a true national monument. To use the Antiquities Act is not the appropriate vehicle as the only urgency in this matter is that President Bush has less than three months left in office and the issue of submerged land ownership is still being debated.
For those who claimed that we have no right to object as we do not own the area now, I say do not be too quick. As noted, the issue surrounding ownership of our submerged lands is not final yet. As it currently stand, the Chamorros and Carolinians of Northern Marianas descent own the land in the Northern Marianas as provided for in our Constitution whether the land is surface or submerged.
The CNMI did not become a member of the American political family as “spoils of war.” The CNMI in the Covenant, establishing the political relationship between the CNMI and the U.S., did not surrender ownership of its submerged lands to the federal government. In fact, the federal government (recognizing the validity of the CNMI’s ownership over its lands) entered into long-term lease agreements for our lands, including the submerged lands, as in the case of the military leases on Tinian, Saipan Tanapag harbor, and Farallon de Mendinilla. Why then would the federal government lease land from us if they claimed they owned it in the first place?
The recent decision by the federal courts stripping the CNMI of ownership of its submerged lands is flawed and downright wrong. It further ignored critical provisions of the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government functioning as our trustee prior to the enactment of the Covenant. We own the land and the federal government, acting as our trustee, should not benefit from the trust without the consent of the beneficiary, the indigenous population. But this is exactly what happened.
Why the federal courts got away with such terrible decision, however, is not surprising as the courts have been pretty consistent in their interpretation favoring the federal government over states when ownership of surrounding submerged lands comes to question. Almost all coastal states, except Texas, have lost in the courts on this matter but subsequently retained ownership of 3 miles through acts of Congress. Texas was an independent country prior to joining the Union and their Constitution gave them ownership of their submerged lands up to 9 miles from their shorelines. Texas retained the 9-mile ownership when they joined the Union while the rest of the coastal states were statutorily granted 3 miles. International law recognizes 12 miles as the territorial seas of the bordering state or country. The U.S., however, does not recognize this.
Further, most of the legal arguments used in support of the recent federal court decision stripping the CNMI ownership of its submerged lands were based on cases where the states had political representation in the U.S. Congress. The assumption is that whatever wealth the federal government realized from the various coastal states’ offshore or submerged lands can be equally shared with other non-coastal or insular states through their representation at the U.S. Congress. It is important to note, that these arguments do not hold water if you realized that the CNMI has had no voice or representation whatsoever in the U.S. Congress.
In short, the CNMI should continue to pursue the path of retaining its rightful claims to our submerged lands but through an Act of Congress. Remember, we are about to elect our non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in our political history. Our delegate should consider this matter of utmost importance and prioritize the introduction of appropriate legislation that will grant and clarify CNMI ownership of our submerged lands.
Proponents of the monument and the federal government must be respectful of this historic event and allow our first delegate to work with Congress in addressing this matter. If it were to occur, then Congress should be the appropriate body to designate the area as a National Marine Monument. In this spirit, our newly elected delegate can participate in the process and, if the monument is the best use of the area so be it, but at least we should seek local participation in the discussion and obtain appropriate federal funding for the monument.
Thus, by designating 115,000 square miles of our limited submerged land resources as part of the National Marine Monument before our delegate even assumes office is an affront to our people and a flagrant circumvention of the democratic process. Federalization is not always the preferred way to managing our resources. State and local governments are historically more creative, responsive, and effective in managing their natural resources.
It is my opinion, however, that although we wish to retain up to 200 miles as our territorial seas and as our exclusive economic zone, we can still find a middle ground by seeking to retain at least 12 miles as our territorial seas which is consistent with international law. From 12 miles outward to 200 miles of our EEZ, we can and should consider a joint or shared ownership with the federal government.
In this spirit, I want to leave this discussion with some hope and optimism for a better CNMI-federal relation. If the president of the United States is truly serious about listening to our needs and concerns, then perhaps a compromise can be reached that will be more palatable to us. This compromise will require the issuance of a presidential proclamation or other executive orders granting the CNMI exclusive control and ownership of its submerged lands out to 12 miles as the CNMI’s territorial seas before he leaves office. From 12 miles out to the 200-mile EEZ of the proposed monument area can then be designated as the National Marine Monument. We will then jointly go before Congress for appropriations to enable us to construct a true marine monument. This may be a more workable and realistic compromise.
In closing, I want to note that the CNMI has always been in the forefront in conservation. The fact that we designate four of our 14 islands as constitutionally protected areas are testament to this commitment. It is important for people to recognize that land for us is very sacred as evidence by Article 12 of our Constitution. Land is land regardless of whether the land is surface or submerged. Further, we can always work with the U.S. Congress in designating the area as a monument in the future. To encourage the expeditious and permanent granting of our limited resources to the federal government because our current president is leaving office soon, as is being proposed, is shortsighted and irresponsible.
Monument proponents must be very careful when advocating loss of local control regardless of the areas of concern. The Covenant already relinquished all “state” and “defense” matters to the federal government. We all know that the U.S. military is relocating its bases, personnel, and other assets from Southeast Asian countries to Guam and our Marianas region. The Marianas is now in the forefront in the U.S. global war on terror and in its worldwide military strategic planning. It is, therefore, critical that the federal government recognizes that although we are caring, loving, patriotic and supportive of our federal government, particularly the military services, the Chamorros and Carolinians who called these islands HOME cry out for justice, respect, and fairness in the way federal programs get implemented.
Federal agencies must be respectful, fair, considerate, and just in the deliberation and/or development of new and emerging relationship whether it be the proposal for the Marine Monument, the application of the federal immigration and labor system, or any other matters affecting the treasured relationship between the CNMI and the United States of America. I hope to see a more friendly and mutually respectful and supportive relationship in the years to come.
Thank you for allowing me to share my perspective on the proposed National Marine Monument and to explain why I do not support the movement to include the CNMI in the rush to glamorize President Bush’s “Blue Legacy” project.
EDWARD C. DELEON
GUERRERO
Koblerville, Saipan
