Both territories need either to form a more perfect union with the U.S. or move toward separate sovereignty and nationhood. There is no permanent or legally enforceable form of “autonomy” available to a U.S. territory under the U.S. Constitution that will enable either of these two historically inter-related American possessions to realize their aspirations for enhanced self-government. In contrast, under either a scenario leading to further integration with the U.S. or succession to sovereign nationhood, both Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would gain critical mass and developmental momentum through unification.
In 1980 the U.S. Congress not only authorized unification, it bent over backwards to encourage it by offering as an incentive the promise that neither territory would experience a diminution of federal assistance in the event of unification. That was three decades ago, and the failure of Guam and the NMI to pursue unification is one factor in the erosion of confidence in Washington that the body politic in either territory is ready for or even serious about greater self-government.
Other factors in the loss of momentum toward increased political development for these two territories include the NMI’s abuse of autonomy from federal immigration and labor laws, as well as Guam’s failure to accept the invitation of Congress to adopt a new local constitution to replace the obsolete and anachronistic organic law dating back to 1950. Instead of a success story based on its affirmative measures to advance self-government, Congress was compelled to rescind NMI autonomy to end abuse of foreign workers, and to reject Guam’s proposal for great autonomy on terms that were legally flawed and politically unrealistic.
In 2007 the Center for Strategic and International Studies, among the most prestigious bipartisan think tanks in Washington, published former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh’s history of U.S. territorial law. Thornburgh concluded that the NMI constitution and the “commonwealth” model for federal-territorial relations was the state of the art in U.S. territorial organic law. Yet, Thornburgh also argues that the “commonwealth” structure falls short of democratic principles, and that unification of Guam and NMI would make efforts by both territories to achieve greater political, social and economic development more credible.
The new realities that Guam and the NMI face include the U.S. national economic emergency, the emergence of China as a new superpower, the decline of Japan’s economy and its impact to tourism in the American affiliated islands, as well as the relocation of U.S. bases in Okinawa to Guam. These are dramatic “game changers” for the territories, and are long term facts of life rather than temporary delays in some inevitable process of territorial policy reform.
It may be that the window of time in the 1970s and 1980s when Congress seemed ready to embrace change in territorial policy has closed due to the changing realities of the larger national and international agenda. The U.S. seems to be returning to a more traditional approach to territorial administration, so that the same failed attempts by the territories in the past to change their status may no longer rise to a level of priority to compel action by Congress.
Thus, even unification by Guam and NMI may be too little too late to revive Congressional interest in self-government reforms that the territories rejected over the last three decades. To understand the new realities in federal territorial law and policy, Thornburgh’s 2007 book published by CSIS, as well as the American Territories Freedom Forum blog on territorial status policy (atff.wordpress.com), are must read resources.
Dr. William B. Cleary, LL.D and LL.M, Hokkaido University; J.D. California Western School of Law; admitted as attorney in California, New York, Guam (inactive) and Federated States of Micronesia; former assistant attorney general of Guam; Legislative Counsel, FSM.
