Debate on indigenous land

The land alienation provision of the Covenant agreement was presented at the outset of the negotiations in 1972. The U.S. Justice Department representative related that such provision, if race-based, could be problematic. But the initial intent by the Marianas contingent was to prevent the loss of land to huge U.S. corporations.

This never happened. Instead, it was Japanese investors who used World War II reconstruction funds to invest here and elsewhere in the global village. The fear then was justified: the protection of the innocent from the more sophisticated people from across the Pacific Divide. This view never materialized given the distance it takes to ship manufactured goods from the CNMI. U.S. conglomerates could easily go down south of the border for both inexpensive shipping and labor. It’s happening today.

It’s important to understand—before any discussion is held publicly—that land has been, still is, and will continue to be a highly controversial issue. Even more important is the question of the protection of indigenous land. This matter solely rests with the landowner. And this an issue that I wish to make abundantly clear: I will consistently fight for indigenous land rights for as long as it is understood and subsequently decided with finality that landownership must be granted, full square, to landowners. In brief, disposition of land is solely the right of landowners—no more, no less.

Let landowners take 100 percent ownership of their land. No one has any right to constantly be given veto power over another person’s property. People have matured and more than capable to make final disposition of their land. I liken this issue to a cigarette lighter. It is mine and I alone can decide whether to loan it and set conditions on how it is used, break it in half or keep it, no more, no less.

Equally troubling is the notion of keeping indigenous land in the hands of Chamorros and Carolinians. This sentiment may have merit if in fact there’s a strong movement at the grassroots level for island nation building. Only our future scholars can decide on this matter. With education fully set under their belt, this is a matter they can revisit to reset the goals of posterity. The protectionist attitude on this issue isn’t going to help anybody other than the superficial attainment of “feel good” accolades for successfully using the rhetoric of fear to continue suppressing the rights of others to fully own their land.

With respect to public land, it’s important that we revisit their use in a place where there’s scarcity of this property. Do we continue leasing public land to bring in new investments and revenue sources? Do we stop right here and now and intone, “Make the world go away?” or shouldn’t we meet and agree on the concept of private/public/partnership in the development of public land into win-win situation?

Finally, the disposition of my property solely rests with me. About the only land that will matter—at the end of the day—is the 4x6x6 where my tired body will rest peacefully, eternally. This is the only property that will matter to me. I need not die like Howard Hughes who expired with VD, an emaciated body and fingernails longer than Dracula’s. Let me rest peacefully under the blue skies of paradise knowing I have full ownership to my land. Have a nice day!