Along the Paseo de Marianas

It is a classic story, the one about the beautiful woman and the elderly moneyed man in a hotel lobby, the elder, enchanted by the lady’s bearing, asks: “For a million dollars, will you go to my room with me?” Without pausing, the woman answers, “Yes, of course.” The elderly gentleman hands her a hundred dollar bill and says, “Let’s go.” Red-faced and evidently embarrassed, the young lady thunders, “And what kind of a woman do you think I am?” The man answers, “We’ve already established that. We are now haggling over the price.”

Somehow, upon reading the news item in Wednesday’s Saipan Tribune, where it was reported that a Carolinian Affairs Office resolution released Tuesday, “contends that people of indigenous descent are the rightful owners of the waters at issue and calls on the federal government to ‘compensate’ people of indigenous descent for any natural resources it uses for conservation purposes,” I got the sense that our local officials have placed themselves in the same role as the proverbial lady in the above story. Have our coffers gotten so desperate that now our officials are plying their roles at the level of our fair ladies-of-the-night along the Paseo de Marianas?

The report does add that the officials of the CAO were simply supporting the “Paramount High Chief’s” efforts to oppose the creation of the monument. In other words, they are being politically correct in the local sense. In a previous news article, it was reported that the High Chief, Gov. Benigno R. Fitial, “continues to insist that the marine monument proposal should not be hastily forced upon the people of the CNMI against the wishes of the democratically elected local government.”

One notices how carefully the governor crafts his words. He claims that the wishes of the democratically elected government are not being recognized. He does not claim that the consent of the democratically active residents and citizens is being ignored. Then, as has been the practice that when in crisis we look for someone to blame, the press release concluded that “the governor expressed concern that well-financed special interest groups may be forcing these severe restrictions on the CNMI without the consent of the elected government or the majority of residents.” So now, supporters of the monument proposals are instruments in the coercive and devious intents of special interest groups.

Whatever happened to weighing the merits of the proposal—ecologically, politically, economically and culturally? Let’s take a quick look.

Ecologically, this proposal stands in stark contrast to the federal administration’s eight-year denial that global climate warming was occurring. The confessional stance, not to mention the plea for atonement alone, for the religious folks of the Marianas, should be sufficient to back the measure, if only for the Marianas, on behalf of the people of the planet, be the instrument of cosmic atonement!

But the groundswell of local support makes the proposal an expression of grassroots’ political wisdom and consent. Of course, the “representative” orientation of our political structure, which insists that the oligarchic domain of the elected officials prevail as an expression of the democratic will, has become so grossly irrelevant and unworkable in recent years that it is no longer a sign of disrespect to question the decisions of the elected officials. In fact, it has become a matter of duty and obligation, a patriotic mark of social responsibility, not only to scrutinize everything, but more importantly, to participate in the political process, even if that means being active in the legislature of the street.

The economics of the proposal is also an area of constant denial. As has been said many times by proponents of the proposal, fishes do not recognize boundaries but they will thrive in areas where the nearshores are conserved and the coral reefs are preserved. When the fish do move out of the protected boundaries, they constitute a healthy catch for fisheries. The control of the area for eco-tourism is also a plus. The experience of Palau with the dolphins, and Hawaii with the whales is worth emulating. As for mining, it has not been shown that what is available around the three islands in question is not available elsewhere. And even if that were the case, the White House spokesman on island, as well as the proponents themselves, have all stated that the limits are negotiable, the possibilities are priceless.

Many claims in the name of culture have been shamelessly made in the current discourse. Frank Agulto’s blood pressure will go up if I remind us what Magellan had called these islands and its indigenes. And we will not visit that characterization, although the evidence points to more than a negligible absence of its practice. In a time when government have universally adopted a borrow-and-spend habit, which the world is now dearly paying for, we did not borrow our children’s future; we have stolen their inheritance.

When I visited Saipan in 1990, the lagoon was not quite algae-decimated yet, and claims that the culture is traditionally environment-friendly taxes credulity in its current practices. Nor do the body movements of Tahiti, the Maoris, and the natives of Hawai’i constituent of Mariana culture. That we appropriate them is fine. But they are no longer the only practices that we can call our own. Besides, there is wealth in the traditions of the taotao tano and the taotao tasi that still remains to be appropriated as there are practices that are best to be deconstructed if not totally abandoned. We shall make responsible choices, not blind adulation of worn-out clichés. One of those choices in enshrined in the Commonwealth Constitution, the conservation and preservation of the physicality of the three northern most islands in the Mariana chain. If anything, the proposal intends to strengthen that resolve.

What is culturally widespread is the sense of entitlement that permeates every layer of contemporary island culture abetted by Uncle Sam’s history of benign neglect. It is often the case that when teachers ask their students to do something, they most invariably will ask, “What will I get in return?” The Pavlovian patterns of reward and punishment, so prevalent in what passes for pedagogical discipline in our schools, have since become a feature of our education. Put an overlay of hierarchical chain of command with military overtones and you have a situation of the upper crust charitably providing tables and chairs during novenas and family picnics, and those at the bottom tiers honing their skills on how to best extend one’s hand for the dole without losing one’s sense of self-respect. Or, finding ways to circumvent the rules imposed from the top that seems to have zealous application to the masses but exceptions to the privileged few.

Thus, it is no surprise that our CAO now wants to be compensated. But let us be clear. Those who cry loudest, claiming that their prerogatives were ignored if not violated, and whose integrity and self-interest are allegedly taken for granted, and might be tempted to take the high road and protest: “Who do you think we are?,” we might be forgiven if the retort would be simple: “We’ve already established that, we are now just haggling over the price!”

We are a tolerant people. We’ve looked the other way as former sewers of attires have exchanged their working clothes to paltry pieces of pulchritudinous enticements. We will be tolerant if the CAO and other representatives of local governance deign to join their ranks. After all, in an island far from the maddening crowd of great delusions and illusions, we could use some local entertainment.