On indigenous rights and racism

I was pleased to see Bryan Manabat’s recent letter in the press regarding the Northern Mariana Islands Registry and indigenous rights.

In his letter, Mr. Manabat correctly points out that the Covenant agreement is in fact a binding agreement between the United States of America and the independent people of the Northern Marianas.

Before Bruce Jorgensen and other recent writers make outlandish claims of racism in regards to indigenous ownership of land in the CNMI, they would do well to familiarize themselves with the Covenant agreement, particularly Section 805:

“Except as otherwise provided in this Article, and notwithstanding the other provisions of this Covenant, or those provisions of the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States applicable to the Northern Mariana Islands, the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands, in view of the importance of the ownership of land for the culture and traditions of the people of the Northern Mariana Islands, and in order to protect them against exploitation and to promote their economic advancement and self-sufficiency:

(a) will until 25 years after the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement, and may thereafter, regulate the alienation of permanent and long-term interests in real property so as to restrict the acquisition of such interests to persons of Northern Mariana Islands descent; and

(b) may regulate the extent to which a person may own or hold land which is now public land.”

The Northern Marianas is certainly not the only part of America that negotiated its political status. Nor is it alone in having special provisions regarding its lands. Texas, for example, negotiated the right to divide itself into five states with the approval of their legislature any time they want to. Also, like the Northern Marianas, Texas did not have to surrender their public land to the federal government. If one starts looking, it doesn’t take long to learn that the expansion of the United States involved many, many negotiations, all of which were basically binding agreements. Of course, the United States does not always negotiate its expansion. The Territory of Guam, for example, was taken as a prize from Spain who took it from the Chamorro people. Nor does the United States always honor its agreements. Countless broken treaties with the Native Americans are testimony to that. But the CNMI is the result of a negotiated agreement and so far the United States has kept its side of the bargain.

When Americans of mainland origin make claims of racism over the unique land ownership rights of the indigenous people of the CNMI, it is usually because of ignorance. They are not aware of the Covenant agreement. But sometimes people are simply trying to justify taking something that does not belong to them. To try to take away indigenous land rights on the grounds of racism is actually an act of racism in and of itself. Basically it is saying that the Northern Marianas people do not have a right to their benefits in a binding agreement because of their race, but the United States does have a right to their benefits in the same agreement. This is especially interesting when one considers that the benefits to the United States includes indigenous kids going off to fight in Iraq, the removal of all indigenous people from one third of Tinian so the U.S. military can have it, and the systematic destruction of Farallon de Medinilla Island by the US Military just for target practice.

The indigenous people did not have to become part of the United States. They had the right to be an independent country or to align themselves with any country. They negotiated with the United States in good faith and the result is the Covenant agreement. It should be honored and respected.

Pete Pangelinan Perez
e-mail