No to the proposed national marine monument

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 realize 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 designated four of our 14 islands as constitutionally protected areas is a testament to this commitment. It is important for people to recognize that land for us is very sacred as evidenced by Article 12 of our Constitution. Land is land, 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 at 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.