On Our Great “Foreign Dependence”

A reader recently wrote to lament our great “economic dependence . . . on foreigners.” She could not appreciate why we are so dependent on “foreigners” and “foreign investors.”

For my own part, I cannot understand why foreigners or foreign investors should be deplored or regarded with such suspicion or contempt. To me, the very emphasis on the word “foreign” seems decidedly nationalistic and collectivist. It borders on the racist in terms of its implications.

In fact, I regard this notion of “foreign dependence” as wholly obsolete in the 21st Century. This is not the way we should be looking at the market and the world. This is not the way our indigenous peoples should think. The CNMI is not well served by xenophobic protectionism. We lose by closing ourselves to the world–to the best that it has to offer the Northern Marianas.

When we purchase an automobile, as CNMI consumers, do we care whether the car is foreign made? Are we to object because a BMW, Lexus or Ford is not made by Chamorro or Carolinian hands?

When we are handsomely employed, should we care whether our employer is Japanese, Chinese, or French? If we are well paid and satisfied with our situation, should we care whether our employer is “a foreigner” or not? Why bother to even make the distinction in the first place? What purpose does it serve?

If a Chamorro man falls in love with a Chinese woman and decides to marry her and start a family, should he be bothered that she is “foreign-born”? Should he think of her primarily as a “foreigner” instead of a special person who cares very deeply for him? Should the Chamorro man lament his “foreign dependence”?

Should there be a law, an Article 12 of sorts, prohibiting indigenous individuals from marrying outside of their race, just as they are prohibited from selling land outside of their race?

For that matter, when we are interested in selling our land, do we really care who the buyer is? Do we really care about his race? If the price is right, what difference does it make?

Article 12, the land alienation clause in our Constitution, was created to protect our Chamorro and Carolinian landowners from “predatory foreign interests.” But how are “predatory foreign interests” more dangerous than predatory indigenous interests?

If a Taiwanese investor is willing to buy an indigenous person’s property for one million dollars outright while a competing indigenous investor is only willing or able to offer $500,000, why is it better for the local landowner to sell to another local for only half as much? Logically, the indigenous landowner should go for the highest price regardless of the buyer’s race.

Unfortunately, the indigenous landowner is not able to get the best possible price because the market is so restricted and illiquid. Under these circumstances, these so-called “predatory foreign interests” are less harmful than predatory indigenous interests, because the “foreign interests” would at least be able to offer more money under a free and deregulated market.

But that is irrelevant to the collectivists bent on protecting us from “foreigners.” Apparently, to them, it is better for an indigenous person to be victimized by another indigenous person rather than by a “foreigner.” If you must be victimized by a real estate transaction, at least have the common decency to insist on being ripped off by your own kind.

Strictly a personal view. Charles Reyes Jr. is a regular columnist of Saipan Tribune. Mr. Reyes may be reached at charlesraves@hotmail.com