Previous Story
Clarification
|
Posted on Aug 21 2008
Bruce Bateman, in his “Sour Grapes” column in Tuesday’s paper, accused me of saying the CNMI “should give away the northernmost three islands in our terribly scarce land resources by ceding them to the U.S. federal government for all time.”
I did not say this. I have never said this. I do support the establishment of a national marine monument in the CNMI’s northern waters. I believe it will be good for the CNMI in a variety of ways. However, I recognize, as should we all, that the CNMI’s three northernmost islands are protected in Article XIV, Section 2, Uninhabited Islands, of the CNMI Constitution as uninhabited places to be used “only for the preservation and protection of natural resources including but not limited to bird, wildlife and plant species.”
The waters surrounding these northern islands—as well as all the islands of the CNMI—are already under federal control. But that hasn’t given the federal government control of the islands within those waters in the south, nor will it do so in the north.
Bateman apparently does not have faith in the process historically used to establish monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906. But hundreds have been established, and I have faith that this one will be no different, and will be accomplished by fair and even-handed negotiations among all parties—should the president designate the seas surrounding the islands of Maug, Asuncion and Uracas as a national monument.
[B]Ruth Tighe[/B] [I]Tanapag, Saipan[/I]
