New rules of engagement for the marine monument proposal

This is my first time to write a letter to the editor about the proposed marine monument. For the record, I have received no money to write this letter, but I will not rule it out. Let the bidding begin at $500!

Joking aside, there are some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed regarding the marine monument. I have seen oft-repeated questions and comments that make me think I am suffering from severe bouts of deja vu. It is possible that there may be too much information regarding the marine monument. Oftentimes, when there is an overabundance of information on a certain topic, people grow weary of it and skip right over it (kind of like my letters to the editor). Perhaps that is why the same questions and comments seem to be repeated and why there appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding on both sides.

With all the personal attacks coming from both sides, I think we should set up some basic rules of engagement. Here are a few that I have come up with in an effort to create intelligent debate:

Accept that this isn’t a battle between good versus evil. The proposed monument is a proposal, and many have taken a stand. This is a good thing! We are not battling corruption or declaring war on terrorists. What we need to accept is that many people have taken opposing sides, and neither side stands for good or evil. It is simply a position, and whether or not their position holds merit should be decided through debating each other’s position.

Fanekungok (Listen). Both sides need to be heard. It is a democracy at its finest hour when people are speaking out on issues. But we need to realize that we cannot engage in an intelligent debate if we fail to listen to what our opponent is saying. State your position and support it, and then listen attentively and respectfully to the opposing side’s response. And then, while still listening, formulate a response to try to refute what was said, respectfully of course. This can definitely stimulate healthy discussion and debate, and who knows how far it will take you. Maybe afterward you can shake hands… and then invite your opponent over for dinner.. and then he or she becomes your BFF (best friend forever). You never know!

Locals versus outsiders. We need to leave race out of this debate. Exclusion of views because of ethnicity fosters animosity and bigotry, and on this beautiful island, we need to be celebrating our ethnic diversity. If you live here and care about our community, then you should rightfully have a voice in this matter. There is a diverse group that represents both sides, and it is unfair to believe that either side has more locals than non-locals. Again, that should not be the point and should be avoided at all costs, as it is extremely divisive and narrow-minded. Let’s rise above this and let us all agree that this is not a battle between locals versus outsiders. You cannot be considered an outsider if you live and work here in the CNMI, even if you are a non-citizen! If you reside here and work here and you pay taxes, then you deserve to be heard, just as much as you deserve equal representation. Let us all agree that every single living person in the CNMI is entitled to their opinion, regardless of race, gender, age, income, or citizenship.

Don’t shoot the messenger. Mr. James Connaughton, White House Council on Environmental Quality chief, and federal staff members are here for dialog. They are here to discuss the potential for creating a marine monument and to listen to the community’s concerns. Can we all agree to show him our warm island hospitality and discuss with him and his staff our concerns and objections in a cordial manner? Can we express why we are either for it or against it, without admonishing him or his staff members? I had the pleasure of attending Monday night’s forum, and I was impressed by the fact that he and his staffers were there to listen attentively to all concerns being expressed. I’ve heard him speak at two different functions and in a radio interview with Harry Blalock. He has repeated his commitment to listen to the concerns of our people. Let’s show them what the Hafa Adai spirit is all about. Mr. Connaughton reports directly to President Bush. Wouldn’t it be nice if he could speak about our legendary hospitality, regardless of our personal positions on the monument?

Agree to disagree. If you have exhausted all persuasive efforts and your opponent still does not agree with you, then perhaps you will be unable to convince your opponent to agree with your position. Agree to disagree and be thankful for the opportunity to debate the issue. If you both listened to each other attentively and calmly and rationally, perhaps you will walk away having a great deal of respect for each other.

These five ground rules, if embraced and applied, can certainly go a long way. For the record, I have friends who are both for and against the monument. Monday night, I walked up to Rep. Ray Tebuteb and shook his hand and gave him a warm hug. We happen to have different views on the monument. Not once did he tell me I was wrong. Not once did I tell him he was wrong. There were no feelings of animosity. He had valid concerns, and they need to be addressed. Hopefully, they can be. I consider Rep. Tebuteb a dear friend, and our opposing views will not affect our friendship. We have taken different positions and have formulated different opinions, and we may or may not continue to discuss our opposing views. But I will certainly continue to greet him and discuss with him various issues affecting our islands.

Do I support the proposal of a marine monument? Yes I do. There are several reasons why I support it, but there is one that stands out in my mind: economic opportunities. Our economy continues to flounder. PSS and NMC continue to suffer from budget cuts, as do all government agencies. Things are going from bad to worse rather quickly. We need to stimulate our economy. Do the research and you will find that where marine monuments pop up, money follows in the form of visitor centers and research facilities and jobs. People will still be able to travel to the Northern Islands, and we must realize that the federal government cannot take control of the three islands in question. That is not what is at stake here. What is a stake here is a golden economic opportunity. As far as rushing it right through? If it is to be approved, the process will be discussed for a lengthy period of time, with assurance that we will co-manage the marine monument and that we will have equal representation, as is in the case of Hawaii’s marine national monument, Papahanaumokuakea. Please, do your research and you will see the economic benefits this monument stands to bring us.

I am quite certain someone will follow up with a letter to me and will tell me all the reasons why I am wrong. I welcome it. I have done enough research to understand both sides, and I felt compelled to take a stand. I want to say that I applaud every single person who has done their homework and has taken the initiative to separate fact from fiction. Whether you are for it or against the proposed marine monument, I wish all of us well as we continue to discuss the marine monument proposal.