|
Reality, (Wow!) What a Concept
By Rubén Berríos Martínez
Without attributing responsibility for my ideas to anyone but myself, I must confess, at the start, that my education at Yale Law School under the guidance of Prof. Myrs McDougal, left me with an unbending propensity to look beyond the letter of the law and probe into its economic, political, and even psychological context. In analyzing a juridical problem - like the Puerto Rican case before us nothing better exemplifies my attitude that an anecdote recalled by a very good friend who studied law, not far from here, in Boston, is a Law School, not famous - at least during my student years - for anything resembling what we at Yale called, in Prof. McDougals term, a "policy oriented approach" (Reality -Wow- What a Concept!).
It is from the perspective of reality and the juridical concepts flowing from that reality - that I will analyze US - Puerto Rico relations.
One can describe this whole past century - since Puerto Rico became a possession of the US by virtue of the Spanish American War - as a prolonged and vain attempt by the American juridical system to justify and legitimize a new political reality (US control of a foreign or alien people) that is diametrically apposed to the very nature of the US constitutional system. In short a constitutional order, born of the first modern anti-colonial struggle was forced to juridically justify colonialism, a notion not only contrary but repugnant to its very nature.
There are two basic undeniable facts that have determined Puerto Rico's relation with the US since 1898. First; US geopolitical and military considerations have been the basic determinants of US policy towards Puerto Rico since the late 19th century. Second; Puerto Rico is a distinct and homogeneous spanish speaking Latin American nation.
In the tension arising from the US will to control Puerto Rico and the struggle of the Puerto Rican people to control their own destiny, can be written the reality of 20th Century US Puerto Rico relations. The legal doctrines referring to such relations supplement that reality.
I.The geo-political and military considerations which led to the US involvement is the Cuban-Spanish War are well known. As regards Puerto Rico its control by the US was basic to the extension of US influence over LA in general and the Caribbean in particular. The acquisition of Puerto Rico was further tied to the decision to build the Panama Canal.
The first legal doctrine developed to justify or legitimize US control of the alien territories and peoples acquired by virtue of the War of 1898 was the doctrine of non-incorporation. The Philippines and Puerto Rico presented new realities which the US had never faced. This doctrine as you well know, had its genesis in various law review articles and was crystallized at the beginning of this century in several Supreme Court decision. For purpose of my exposition, suffice it to say that it is a doctrine designed to justify the presence and control of the US in the Philippines and Puerto Rico territories which are not destined towards statehood. In the new legal vocabulary developed by the Supreme Court those territories belong to but are not part of the US.
For the first time, the US acquired "possessions" as distinct from territories on the way to ultimate statehood, and had been this case since the Louisiana Purchase. It is thus not strange that different words were found to distinguish between old fashioned territories which were part of the "corpus" of the US political body (that is the incorporated territories) and the new type of territories or possessions (not part of the US "corpus") which were to be called non-incorporated.
The contrast with Hawaii is revealing. The Philippines and Puerto Rico were densely populated lands inhabited by foreign peoples where the local elites held a large measure of the economic and social power. Hawaii was a sparsely populated land, where US economic interest held sway. The potential americanization of Hawaii stood out as a very real possibility - as was later confirmed. - The americanization of Puerto Rico, a Latin American nation in the middle of the Caribbean was a promising perspective and the Philippines were less so. The US was interested in the "cage not the birds" (to use a phrase coined by Pedro Albizu Campos as regards Puerto Rico). In the Puerto Rican case, contrary to Hawaii there were too many birds, almost, 1 million in a territory of 3,500 square miles. (In Hawaii in a territory twice the size of Puerto Rico Native Hawaiians only a small minority were native Hawaiians and by 1920 less than 10% of a total of 250,000)
II.As the century matured, the geopolitical reasons which had led to the invasion and acquisition of Puerto Rico became more and more evident. The Panama Canal was now a living reality and the threat posed to American interest in Latin American by Germany increased with the advent of the first World War.
The US tightened its hold on the Caribbean. It invaded Haitian 1915, the Dominican Republic in 1916 and formalized its will to remain permanently in Puerto Rico by imposing US citizenship through the Jones Act of 1917.
United States citizenship was the juridical expression of the will of the US to remain in control of Puerto Rico. Its purpose was to put to rest the issue of Independence. In the words of Rep. Jones:
"The US seems practically unanimous that Porto Rico is to remain permanently a part of the US in order to put an end to all agitation of this question...we ought to declare at once that the people of this island are citizen of the US. Is it not best in this way to remove the question from Porto Rican politics?"
And President Wilson in his has inaugural address, contrasting the Philippines and Puerto Rico said (quote) "no doubt we shall successfully enough bind Porto Rico" whereas
the Philippines, he said and I quote, is "a more difficult and debatable matter."
Thus the Philippines more distant, more alien - they were asiatic - and with a good enough strategic substitute in Hawaii, were thus promised eventual independence, while Puerto Ricans were made perment wards of US - colonialism through US citizenship. This geopolitical decision was juridically confirmed by the US Supreme Court in Balzac versus Puerto Rico (1922). The theory that Puerto Rico could be incorporated into the US through the imposition of US citizenship was rejected. Nobody was to be put on the road towards statehood sub-silentio on indirectly. Plainly and simply Puerto Rico was to be a possession of the US and besides it was to be permanently in such status by virtue of US citizenship. Puerto Rico was to be subject to US sovereignty but with no eventual promise either of statehood or independence.
Puerto Rico was now officially in the limbo of being a permanent colony of the first anti-colonial power of modern times.
III. A. The Struggle of the Puerto Rican people to control its own destiny multiplied in the 20's and 30's.
1. Without a doubt those advocating independence were in the majority.
2. 1936 - 46% Liberal Party + Nationalist Party.
3. 1940 - Electoral victory of the PPD (Bread, Land and Liberty).
B. World War II looming in the horizon. Will of the US - Geopolitical
1. Ponce Massacre
Imprisonment Albizu
2. PPD - Status on hold till after the war.
C. After the War - The Cold War
1. Puerto Rican Legislature - after the failure of Tydings Piñero Bill, it approved a Plebiscite Bill, between Statehood, Independence and Dominion Status: The US Governor vetoes and then President Truman.
So much for the will of the Puerto Rican people! Again the power and will of US control over Puerto Rico prevails.
D. As a consolation price the Elective Governor Act of 1947and in a quid pro quo the expulsion of the independentistas from the PPD - Repression
E. 1. But the Post War Decolonization Wave was to strong; and in Puerto Rico too powerful - Nationalist Uprising - PIP.
2. a) ELA - (and its English translation)
b) The ultimate fig leaf; coupled with forced UN Resolutions.
c) Two anthems, two flags and "in the natureof a compact" but all US laws apply. Sovereignty is vested on the US, and as federal increases local authority decreases.
d) We could argue all day but the US House of Representative has spoken clearly. The co-conspirator and the mastermind behind the 1952 Commonwealth fraud has turned state witness.
IV. But since 1952 ELA is pregnant with a profound contradiction-statehooders are the beneficiaries.
1. The gap is too great between the reality of colonialism and the theory of democracy and a republican form of government.
2. If to this contradiction one adds two overwhelming facts, then one fully understands the enormous growth of the statehood forces:
a) The enormous increase in economic dependence - 7 million in 1973 to $1.7 billion in 1995 (total of 24 billion) transfer payments to individuals (excluding social security, pensions, and veteran's benefits) (equivalent in government to government subsides).
b) The anti-independence propaganda campaign and political persecution (Puerto Rico Supreme Court decision).
The only way left open for many was statehood.
V. I venture to say that the future will be dictated by present day realities within the context of the two main determinants which I referred to at the beginning; the will of the US to control Puerto Rico and the existence of the Puerto Rican nation.
1. Non-incorporation is no longer an option because it is the seedbed of statehooders, and it is a repugnant anti-democratic colonial anachronism. Commonwealthers, rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic.
2. End of the Cold War.
Dwindling strategic needs in the present day world.
3. a) Alterative options - For a different nation, in full economic dependence the federalist option will naturally be explored within the context of "jíbaro statehood."
But it will be found wanting for, to the US, (E Pluribus Unum) the threat of multi-nationalism is too great.
b) Issue regarding Statehood cannot be postponed if rationality is to prevail.
c) Young Bill should be amended. How?
d) Face reality and move toward Puerto Rican sovereignty. In the present day, the two main determinants modern Puerto Rican history can finally find expression in Puerto Rico Sovereignty.
4. To conclude it may sound odd but I will quote from the Nobel Prize winning US Secretary of State, that is Elihu Root (always moved by reality) who said long ago.
"The organization of independent nations is in the main the outgrowth of the progress in civilization which leads people to seek the liberty of local self-government according to their own ideas. What ever may be the form of local govt's, there can be no tyranny so galling as the intimate control of the local government affairs of life by foreign rulers who are entirely indifferent to the local conceptions of how life ought to be conducted. National independence is an organized defense against that kind of tyranny. Probably the organization of nations is but a stage of development, but it is the nearest that mankind has yet come towards securing for itself a reasonable degree of liberty with a reasonable degree of order."
For a thematic discussion on politics, language and culture see: Situational Culture.
See Ruben Berrios Martinez @
independencia.net
|