Rights to sea & seabed resources

Perhaps we’re a bunch of effete people, lacking the courage and resolution to decisively move forward on matters of state. Or is it that we’re too weak, too indecisive, and too pusillanimous to dispose of vital issues on a timely basis. Perhaps we’ve settled for the usual dish of instant gratification, hoping hard work doesn’t return for purposeful resolution. This dismissive behavior now haunts us, quizzing how did we miss it altogether.

Thus the persistent use of the ad hoc approach that has hardened into normal modus operandi. Now we’re backpedaling, quizzing if there’s still some window of opportunity to claim what we think are ours. We say so as though the CNMI is a sovereign country. One such issue is the claim to unilateral disposition of everything within the 200-mile EEZ of the NMI—sea and seabed resources.

Indeed, there may be room to make a claim for it, based on fishing as a tradition in this archipelago since time immemorial. Yes, our forefathers have fished these waters even as far out as 500 miles to support the dietary needs of our people in the Northern Marianas community. I am sure, too, that our forefathers would quickly point out that what’s ours is still ours for they’ve never given any of it to Spain, Germany, Japan and now the U.S.

I can understand and appreciate the rising sentiment: “Why do we need the permission of the federal government to dispose of sea and seabed resources on the islands as we see fit?” Isn’t it our waters for over four thousand years? How come it is now argued that we can’t legally lay claim to these resources? Yes, indeed, it makes perfect sense of the relationship between islanders and the seas around them and the economic implications that comes with the territory. But would this sentiment, legal and otherwise, sit well with the U.S. Congress or U.S. Supreme Court? It’s an issue of who has sovereign rights or who has sovereign rights to national resources, the U.S. or the CNMI?

Would our argument suffice if we use the UN Law of the Sea Treaty to which the U.S. isn’t a member? I understand from a legal expert that the CNMI had up until March of 1987 to lay claim to its sea and seabed resources. But it lost it when the Magnuson Act, governing law of the sea issues for the country, came into effect that year. Hmmm! We must have been sleeping on the job again? Loss of full control over our resources was further reinforced by Section 1 of the Covenant Agreement where we surrendered sovereignty to the national government. The Magnuson Act deals with the sovereign rights of the U.S. over its 200-mile EEZ that now includes the CNMI. This is legally where we are today. Missed the boat? Definitely! You can mouth off about it but there’s nothing up that alley.

Is there any room to claim ownership to what’s in our waters? Maybe. But the CNMI can’t begin the long journey of negotiations by spouting off what’s questionably ours in the pages of newspapers. It must be addressed formally in order to set the wheels in motion. Otherwise, we can just “let it be” and live happily ever after. In brief, if you feel so strongly about it, then lift your first step on a thousand-mile journey to see if our claim is fact or fiction. Why treat it with another 10-foot pole?

Hmmm! Why do we go to watch the parade when it has long since left the ground? Is the Johnny Come Lately syndrome now a permanent fixture of the local culture? A` Saina!

****

[B]2nd Marianas political status commission
[/B] There’s a proposal to establish a second Marianas Political Status Commission to review certain issues relating to the deepening dysfunctional relationship between the CNMI and the feds. But let’s begin by understanding a simple legal fact: The relationship per the Covenant Agreement is a permanent one.

There’s the preliminary query that focuses on: Are you satisfied? Well, are we talking about critical assessment of the performance of both sides of the Pacific Divide? Or is the query intended to quickly shift the blame to Uncle Sam once more? I mean, whining and blaming others for our own inadequacies is a forte on the islands. Could we speak maturely about the entire nine yards without the blame game syndrome?

I think the more realistic route is to revive the Commission on Federal Laws, the vehicle that was established and tasked the duty to seek refinement of the relationship. Indeed, the relationship has deteriorated into dysfunction when the commission died a silent death. It obviates the need to critically take an honest introspective review of measures we’ve taken to find out what we thought we did that didn’t do to strengthen the institution of self-government.

Indeed, we’re aware of the forced contraction of the local economy, triggered by uncertainties from the takeover of immigration. But such change in command of immigration was forthcoming and we even failed to plan for it. Had we had a plan of our own to use as a gauge, we would have been upfront and candid about how egregiously such change would adversely impact the local economy. But we sat back complacently singing “let it be.” Obviously, leadership deficit was at its best and now the deathly deepening economic disaster.

In brief, there’s a greater need for an honest self-evaluation of how well we’ve done instituting policies to strengthen local self-government. Is bankruptcy and economic annihilation the prized trophy of the CNMI after millions of dollars in grant funds from Uncle Sam over the last three decades? Like Buddy Magoo would say, “Ai! I don’t know Maria!”

****
[I] Delrosario is a regular contributor to the [/I]Saipan Tribune’[I]s Opinion Section.[/I]