US: Asia Pacific hegemony

In the calm of our pearly archipelago, we occasionally flex our muscles on issues like military plans, revenue potential from migratory fish and seabed resources, among other local concerns with federal and geopolitical implications.

Didn’t we also have pipe dreams about the sale of pozzolan that died a slow death sinking into the sea around Pagan? Where are the marshland reed scientists who spouted of the millions of dollars from this failed to market mineral?

Indeed, these are worthy issues for deliberative discussions with the feds. If it listens, to what extent would it accommodate our desire for effective indigenous disposition of what we think historically belong to us? Or will it use security to trump what matters to us?

There are mega analysis and expert views on military hegemony in the Asia Pacific by the U.S. and allied countries. The term “hegemony” simply means control over the entire region this century. It makes it a difficult task placing our interest into context for nowhere is there mention the interest of the CNMI in white papers prepared about U.S. Asian Pacific policy.

Would Japan retain the pacifist position under her constitution or would ultra-nationalism eventually shift it in defense of the Senkaku Islands? Are there serious concerns that China has started flexing her muscles to control water vital to its commerce and entry into the Pacific in search of a global role?

Our country has matchless firepower even on technological weaponry that nobody wants to mess with and not with forward bases in the entire global village. China is alone. It isn’t interested in securing the waters off the West Coast or places away from its immediate jurisdiction.

It’s clear our country’s agenda is regional hegemony and would not accept anything that might reduce its dominance on a global basis. Thus, our issues are dwarfed and tucked within the larger picture of global domination.

But would we still rule global hegemony in light of a decision by the Obama administration to systematically reduce our global influence that includes cutting the size of the U.S. Army to WWII level? Indeed, the price of freedom is very high but it is “never too high” as expressed by Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush. Not when we’re talking about protecting our freedom and global security. It shows Obama mixes fantasy and reality in this case.

On Fitial’s extradition

The issue is a foreign affairs matter under the purview of the departments of State and Justice. This is explained in plain language under pertinent provisions of the Covenant Agreement.

With this in mind, why would Rep. Francisco S. Dela Cruz employ political spin unjustly demonizing Gov. Eloy Inos of trying to wash his hands? Isn’t this a highly irresponsible allegation? Is adolescent political spin far more vital than truth and integrity?

The matter involves a sovereign country that could only be handled by the departments of State and Justice or the feds. Why adopt a useless resolution that depicts inadequacies how ill informed you and colleagues are what the ruling provisions provide as a matter of protocol inherent under the agreement?

Perhaps it’s a perfect excuse to veer off answering what solutions you have for the 25-percent cut in retirees’ pay, increase in health premiums, deductibles and medication, planned increase in power bills, and the impending increase in food commodities? Are you fearful of real people issues?

The ill-timed spout is far from factual, therefore an apology is in order for the governor. No worries, sir. I’m no fan of this administration but you must learn to discern what’s Caesar’s. Read the agreement so you eliminate ludicrous and adolescent accusations. Ever heard of the word integrity? Is your politically warped spin anywhere near this term?

Economics vs security

Our aspiration is focused on potential economic benefits from migratory fish and seabed resources. Whether this aspiration could be attained realistically or otherwise remains to be seen.

We do know of fishing nations nearby who pay fees for harvesting migratory fish on a quota basis all over the Pacific. What’s our share in the harvest of highly lucrative seabed resources within the 200-mile EEZ around the NMI?

Indeed, some have mentioned what the U.N. Charter on Indigenous Rights declares or reasons the U.S. refuses to be a signatory to the U.N. Law of the Sea agreement. As we pace these issues moving forward, it also pays to be realistic what the U.S. Magnuson-Stevens Act provides for U.S. coastal states and territories. Application of laws center on the Magnuson-Stevens Act, not the usually spineless U.N. declarations often muted or compromised by money from donor countries.

Difficult unraveling the geopolitical implications of NMI concerns may be, it should, however, help the islands meet future expenses while absolving U.S. mainland taxpayers doling out what they should pocket for their own family use at home. Again, ours is the potential for economic prosperity. It may be a simplistic view but a view that is often much more sensible than expanded security.

A partnership 

With global hegemony uppermost in its agenda, perhaps it makes sense exploring with the Department of Defense forms of assimilation and partnership where no one is left standing at the fence hoping for an invitation to play ball.

Eventually, military communities would be established on Tinian, southern Saipan, facilities in Lower Base, and Pagan. A partnership is in order and an issue to push for with DOD. This government is bankrupt and we have no way to pay for basic infrastructure anywhere.

For instance, there’s a plan to begin moving development to the northern side of the island (Marpi). Has the NMI earmarked sufficient CIP funds to complement this plan or are we ready to scratch our heads in embarrassment and ask developers to shoulder CIP costs that are appropriately our share of development? I think it’s called planning.