Stuck in colonial crisis, what can we do?

These Islands By Robert Underwood

A U.S. territory in the Pacific is a colony by any definition. Colonies are defined based on their lack of full participation in the countries that “own” them. That is clearly us.

We usually think of colonies as experiencing direct control by the “owners,” as was historically the case with the naval governments of Guam and American Samoa. The status of the Marianas under the old Trust Territory featured some military control in the beginning, but also the famous civilian district administrators and high commissioner

Since then, there have been many incremental changes, which bring about arguments that colonies no longer exist. Indeed, they no longer exist in the old way. But there are newer ways, such as redefining the Northern Marianas as a Commonwealth via a covenant. American Samoa frequently refers to the Deed of Cession of Tutuila as the Treaty of Cession of Tutuila, as if it were a bilateral agreement subject to periodic review. By comparison, Guam has the puny Organic Act as the governing act. American Samoa doesn’t have an Organic Act in the same way.

Do differences in the origin of the relationships indicate that colonies no longer exist? That could be the case, but in point of fact, they share one fundamental similarity. They are all “unincorporated territories” of the United States. That is their fundamental political status. They are owned but not part of the United States, except when the United States decides otherwise. Colonies have the position of being able to petition the colonizers. Unincorporated territories are given the same position, although on a more regular basis.

Statehood would be the ultimate goal, but that seems like a difficult road to traverse. The opposite end is free association or independence. But even those political status options are subject to charges of “neo-colonialism” or continuing external control via overwhelming political or economic influence. That sounds a lot like the United States’ existing free association arrangements with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. But it is a step up, isn’t it? Is it our fate to choose between continuing colonial status or some kind of neo-colonialism?

Of course, the territories continue to push various arguments to ameliorate their existing conditions. There are calls for greater participation in “domestic” programs like SNAP, Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid. There are annual discussions organized by the Inter-governmental Inter-agency Task Force, usually led by the Department of the Interior. The governors, the delegates and important federal agencies are invited. The test of importance is not who shows up from the colonies, but who shows up from the colonizers' side. You rarely get a secretary, but you might get an assistant secretary or deputy secretary.

I do not make light of these opportunities to argue for policy change or expand federal programs. I was a beneficiary and advocate of that very process for 10 years as a non-voting delegate from Guam. It may not be an elegant title, but it is the official title. From time to time, you must remind yourself about that to understand where you are in the scheme of things. When you get a memorandum for all “members,” it is frequently addressed to “all members, delegates and resident commission.” You aren’t really a “member” of a “members only” club. But I still had many successes I could point to. Almost all delegates can do the same.

However, I failed to alter the goal of changing the colonial relationship. Under the new Trump administration, we should take the time to seriously assess whether a significant change is possible or will prove even more impossible.

ADVERTISEMENT

With Democrats, you will always find a sympathetic ear and some hand-holding as you advocate for decolonization. With traditional Republicans, you may get either a strong rebuke or a reaffirmation of the colonial relationship. But some may ask, what new deal can be made? Some will characterize this as the difference between sympathy and deal-making. 

With Trump, none of this is as clear. We may find out that we are heading for a new era of colonialism in which the United States is acquiring territories instead of redefining the old ones. The strategic vision that the new administration is pursuing in response to China will help us understand where we are at. Guam and Northern Marianas leaders are trying to figure out how they fit, not necessarily to counteract China, but to take advantage of the moment. American Samoa is arguing for various security arrangements to counteract China.

Some of this is fed by Winston Churchill’s famous assertion: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” It would require someone of Churchillian stature and leadership skills to be able to take advantage of any crisis. We may have some candidates for that in the islands.

They would have to face some current Washington D.C., candidates, who aspire to the same status or have the same kind of skills.

In the current situation, the colonial exertion of political and military control varies from territory to territory, depending on what is needed to sustain that colonial status. In Guam, military influence is very clear. In the Northern Marianas and American Samoa, the role of the Department of the Interior is larger. The Northern Marianas may be experiencing a change of interlocutors of colonial control. They seem to want that change on the assumption that increased military attention offers political and governmental advantages.

They seem to forget Guam’s historical lessons. Guam’s leaders have always prided themselves on being loyal to the United States, especially during World War II.

Guam is steadily American and loyal to the core, pointing to military enlistment rates and CHamoru suffering for the flag as evidence. But when the time came to hand out increased levels of self-government in the 1970s, the Northern Marianas raced by loyal Guam’s Organic Act, moving toward the Covenant and Commonwealth.

That is a historical interpretation that may no longer hold water. In colonial situations, it isn’t loyalty that is rewarded, it is importance. How you utilize that importance will define your future relationship. I haven’t seen a coherent approach to articulating that future emerging from any would-be Churchills in the islands.

Dr. Robert Underwood is the former president of the University of Guam and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Send feedback to anacletus2010@gmail.com.