Jose S. Dela Cruz
OVER the past several years, the CNMI has suffered through several major crises: the Covid-19 pandemic, the destructive typhoons, the downfall and bankruptcy of the Saipan casino industry, and a paralyzed economy. All these events and crises have adversely affected our people, the CNMI government and the overall economy of the CNMI, particularly the CNMI visitor industry (our only industry now). These adverse events and crises have resulted in a drastic reduction of CNMI government revenue collection, which in turn has adversely affected the delivery of public services. Financial belt-tightening, therefore, is a must under our present economic condition.
Today, the visitor industry is basically on life support, trying its best to weather the disastrous economic storm that it has suffered from all these calamities. Hoping against hope, the visitor industry has been trying its best to return to the state where it was six-to-ten years ago, when the industry was robust and was generating a profit with an 80-90 percent hotel occupancy rate.
As a result of the dismal state of our economy, we recently learned of one of the first major casualties of the CNMI visitor industry: the closure of the venerable Hyatt Regency Saipan, a visitor industry landmark that is as old as the commonwealth itself. Other major hotels on the island fear and are quite apprehensive that they may also experience the same fate as the Hyatt, hoping against hope (again) that this will not happen. But the only way for our hotels to stay afloat is if, during the next several months, enough visitors to the CNMI start returning and making the visitor industry return to life once again.
When the hotel industry reaches an 80-90 percent occupancy rate, then and only then could the hotels and the visitor industry begin to breathe a sigh of relief. Hopefully, this will begin to take place by the end of 2024. So, we are all keeping our fingers crossed. But to make this goal a reality, the CNMI government and our business community (particularly the CNMI visitor industry) must join hands and work together cohesively to achieve this objective. A unified approach is necessary; indeed, it is mandatory that we all unite on this issue.
We cannot continue the disagreement between our key business players and the government where the two parties cannot reach a solution regarding how to achieve this very important objective. We need to realize that we cannot afford to continue walking around in circles. We need to have a practical solution that could only be achieved through discussion and compromise. We cannot afford to continue the stalemate between the CNMI government and the business community, where the government chooses one approach, and the business community chooses a completely different approach. For if we do not work together, the CNMI economy will sink.
Today, the CNMI visitor industry is faced with a critical dilemma, namely, whether it should resurrect the Chinese visitor market in order to breathe life into the CNMI visitor industry. The two other sources of visitors to the CNMI have been Korea and to some extent Japan. Although Korea is presently the No. 1 source of visitors to the CNMI, the number of visitors from that country still falls short of the numbers needed by the CNMI visitor industry to revive itself and to at least “break even.” As for visitors from Japan, its economy as we know has not performed well in recent years. The value of the Japanese yen has dipped to a point where not that many Japanese are now traveling on vacation.
Because the CNMI visitor industry’s primary source countries are basically Korea, Japan and China, the industry wants to first concentrate on promoting the CNMI for visitors from Korea and China, until such time as the Japanese market becomes viable. The reason for this is because these two countries — Korea and China — are presently the most viable markets for our visitor industry. The dilemma that the CNMI visitor industry faces, however, is the announced preferred policy of the CNMI Administration to “pivot” away from the Chinese visitor’s market because of U.S. national security concerns.
There is, of course, no question that America and the CNMI have a valid interest and concern with respect to the Chinese Government’s aggressive and at times belligerent military activities in the Asia-Pacific Region over the past decade. This fact has resulted in a heightened military alert on the part of the U.S. Government with respect China’s military activities in the Asia Pacific region.
The people of the CNMI are very much aware of the U.S. security concerns and the tension that comes with the heightened U.S. military posture in response to China’s military activities in the Asia-Pacific region. Such is the reason for the major military build-up going on in Guam, our next-door neighbor. We are also aware of the several proposed and ongoing U.S. military projects on Tinian, such as the divert airfield that has been constructed there. All these U.S. military build-ups and projects in our area are being taken as a precaution in the event the U.S.-China military tension escalates. And there is nothing wrong with the U.S. response. Indeed, it should be expected. Hopefully, however, these security events and military projects will not result in any military confrontation between the two countries, because if that happens the CNMI will be right smack in the middle of such a conflict.
Notwithstanding the present military tension in the Asia Pacific Region, however, the matter involving the CNMI visitor industry is not the same thing as the U.S. Government’s concerns regarding China’s military activities in the Asia-Pacific Region. One does not and should not necessarily negate the other. Indeed, I believe that the U.S. Government would be the first to tell the CNMI not to proceed with our plans to revive the Chinese visitor program if the presence of Chinese visitors in the CNMI would compromise U.S. security concerns in our area. But the U.S. military has not said so, as far as I am aware.
Indeed, the U.S. Government has provided, through congressional legislation, for the implementation of the EVS-TAP Program with respect to Chinese visitors who wish to visit the CNMI and vacation here. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, I understand, would screen in advance all our incoming visitors from China. This way, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will ensure that no “untoward” persons from China masquerading as good-faith visitors to the CNMI will be allowed entry into the CNMI.
The EVS-TAP pre-entry security screening program should be sufficient to address U.S. security concerns for visitors from China. And if such is the case, then shouldn’t good-faith visitors from China be permitted to vacation in the CNMI? Chinese visitors to the CNMI are not the Chinese military coming to the CNMI, say, to spy on U.S. military projects in the CNMI. Indeed, there is no military facility in Saipan, where almost all our visitors come for vacation anyway.
If I am wrong in my thinking as to the absence of any danger by allowing pre-screened Chinese visitors to come to the CNMI for leisure, I would like to know why I am wrong and I shall stand corrected. But if I am correct in my view that ordinary Chinese visitors are not here to spy or to cause harm to the United States and the CNMI, then clearly the CNMI visitor industry, the hotel association and the chamber of commerce should get together with the CNMI government to discuss and address the return of Chinese visitors to the CNMI. We should realize that all visitors coming to the CNMI, including visitors from China, come here for leisure, to spend their money on local businesses and in the process help to improve our local economy.
Maybe a third party should be made a part of this joint discussion about resuming the return of visitors from China, and that is the U.S. military itself. This way, it can express whatever concerns the U.S. military has over the resumption of Chinese visitors to the CNMI.
But we cannot resolve the present impasse between our business community and the CNMI government unless we join hands to address what appears to be a significant dilemma affecting our visitor industry–our only industry now. It may also be that by encouraging visitors from China to visit the CNMI–a part of the United States, the military tension between China and the United States might hopefully de-escalate to some extent. And this will be, as the saying goes, a “win-win” situation.
Just last week, we heard the good news that China has agreed to renew its lease of Chinese Panda bears with the Washington, D.C. Zoo for a new ten-year term. Maybe this gesture of goodwill on the part of the Chinese government could be the beginning of an improved political relationship between the U.S. and China. Another second gesture of goodwill — on our part — would be the return of Chinese visitors to the CNMI. What do you think?
