http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2010/01/chamorro-self-determination.html

15 January 2010

Chamorro Self-Determination

(Marianas Variety)

By Ben Pangelinan

Over 3,600 years before the lost European Ferdinand Magellan ascended into our small island chain, 3,830 years before my grandmother was born and 3,887 years ago before I was born —the Chamorro people sailed the oceans and lived on this land they called Guahan.

While we may assume that all was well, there was turmoil and fights among the natives, as territories were established, villages were staked out and boundaries were defended. Then in 1668 they came to settle, bringing their own social and religious systems, work, faith and institutions to make our heathen lives civilized and whole.

Some of the natives succumbed and converted. Maga lahis Hineti, Ayihi, So’on and Odo fought on the sides of the occupiers and were rewarded with title and status. Hurao, Ahgao, Hula, Chaifi, Mata’pang and Tolahi and many others resisted and fought these outsiders. They resisted and waged fierce battles to preserve our land, sea, and the fruits and bounties that were ours. They believed it was more important to live as we knew how and to serve our wants and needs as we saw fit. (I Manmanaina-ta: I Manmaga’lahi yan I manma’gas; Geran Chamoru yan Espanot 1668-1695. Ed Benavente 2007).

The resistance lasted for over 27 years and resulted in bloodshed. From the very beginning, the people strongly resisted and would not abandon their ancient customs or bow to the authority of the Spaniards. Governor de la Corta wrote in his Memoria “one does not know which to admire most, whether the tenacity of the Spaniards in conflicts with the elements against a cunning and treacherous people during no less than 20 years of resistance, or that of the natives pursuing such a cruel and prolonged war which could only end in their annihilation and ruin.”

The truth of these words, “annihilation and ruin” is reflected in the “reduccion” which sought to convert the natives. Beginning in 1668, marked by the killing of Pale Diego de San Vitores in 1672 and ending in 1698, it saw the reduction of the Chamorro people from the estimated 60,000 to 100,000 at the time of discovery to just 3,678, according to the 1710 census, a mere 12 years after the end of the war. (The Marianas Islands 1884-1887 Random Notes. Francisco Olice y Garcia. Translated and Annotated by Marjorie G. Driver. Second Edition 2006).

Insight to the determination of the Chamorros to defy the occupiers in the face of certain annihilation and ruin is most clearly articulated by Chief Hurao:

“The Europeans would have done better to remain in their own country. We have no need of their help to live happily. They take away from us the primitive simplicity in which we live. They dare to take away our liberty, which should be dearer to us than life itself. They try to persuade us that we will be happier, and some of us had been blinded into believing their words. But can we have such sentiments if we reflect that we have been covered with misery and illness ever since those foreigners have come to disturb our peace? For what purpose do they teach us except to make us adopt their customs, to subject us to their laws, and lose the precious liberty left to us by our ancestors?

We are stronger than we think! We can quickly free ourselves from these foreigners! We must regain our former freedom.” (Speech by Chief Hurao. Dated: 1671).

But heart and determination was not enough to overcome the resources and the advance weapons of the occupiers. For the next 200 plus years, the people lived under the control and domination of this outside metropolitan government. Then in 1898, as part of the spoils of the Spanish-American War, a new domination was begun. This time it was under the United States of America. While the Spanish used force, faith and bullets to impose their will, this new power was more beguiling using seduction and law to get their way.

An interesting fact of the event of this war, which placed Guam under the United States, was that it was declared after the passage of the Tellar amendment to ensure that the United States would not establish permanent control over Cuba following the cessation of hostilities with Spain. The amended resolution demanded the Spanish withdrawal and authorized the President to use as much military force as he thought necessary to help Cuba gain independence from Spain. Of the four territories taken by the United States because of the war, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam, Puerto Rico and Guam continue to be under the administrative control of the United States. While the new occupier had a different approach towards the natives, they had one thing in common with the old—they imposed a government upon us, not of our own choosing. 1898 did not only bring a new occupying government over the people of Guam, it also brought a new occupant to Guam and that was my grandmother who was born on this island.

For the next four decades, the United States wielded its authority over the people, making decisions, which suited their needs and determined for us, the natives, what our needs were. Once again, the native leaders rose up to regain our rights, as a people in our own land..

Using reason and law, the weapons of the new occupiers, instead of sword and violence of the old, our leaders fought for our rights to govern ourselves and determine for ourselves what is best for our people. Once again, the occupier’s resources overwhelmed the meager resources of our people. We petitioned the Congress and even walked out of an institution they said gave us democracy and self-government when it was obvious they only did it to appease us. They continued to deny our right to self-determination and to our sisters in waiting—Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines.

Once again, war came and the geopolitical events affecting independent states brought us a short era of foreign domination and occupation of a new power as Japan invaded Guam. Again, our people resisted and fought, while the United States left the Chamorros behind to deal with the invading enemy. The need for a base of operations to defeat the Japanese saw the return of the Americans, as she reclaimed her lost territory to serve as the launching point to end the war. As part of the structure of the new world order, the states of the world organized as a Union Nations dedicated to resolving future disputes in a peaceful manner and recognized the need to respect and honor the rights of those peoples liberated from domination and war.

The signatory states of the United Nations Charter freely agreed to obligate themselves and accept responsibility for the “administration of territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount … and to this end they would seek to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the people, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its people and their varying stages of advancement.” (Chapter X1, Article 73 (b). United Nations Charter).

At the signing of the United Nations Charter, nearly 100 nations were voluntarily placed on the list of non-self governing territories by the signatory states which held these places before World War II and entrusted to them the administration of the affairs to be governed according to the Charter. The United States as part of this event, accepted the obligation over Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Micronesia).

Since the establishment of the list, over 80 of the territories from the original list of non-self governing territories have been herded by their administrative authority through the process of self-determination, attaining the free expression of the people, their ultimate desire. Despite this progress, by 1960 the General Assembly believed that the pace of decolonization of the non-self governing territories, which still included Guam was too slow and adopted two landmark resolutions.

The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples marked the shift from the “principle of self determination for these territories” to “all peoples have the right to self-determination.” It further states that, “All people have the right to self-determination by virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (Resolution 1514(XV).

A component of that Declaration of Colonial People, Resolution 1514 set forth three ways in which these territories can attain a full measure of self-determination as envisioned in the Charter.The first option is Free association with an independent State as a result of the voluntarily choice expressed through an informed and democratic process. The second option is through Integration with an independent State based on complete equality between the peoples of the non-self governing territory and the independent State. And the third option was Independence. Whatever the option chosen by the people of the non-self governing territory, it must be the result of the freely expressed wishes of these peoples.

As of today, there remain 16 non-self governing territories from the original list of close to 100 who have yet to exercise self-determination and freely express their choice. Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, all administrated by the United States are part of the last remaining 16. There have been attempts by administrating authorities to redefine not only the process of self-determination and decolonization, but the status of self government as well. Decolonization is what happens when one exercises self-determination. It is direct democracy and affirmative action freely expressed by the people themselves, clearly a right inherent in the people of Guam and clearly remains unexercised to this date.

With the signing of the Treaty of Paris on April 11, 1899 between Spain and the United States, Guam’s status as a territory under the sovereignty of the United States was cemented in law with the ratification of the treaty. While we may not accept it, Guam and its people became the property of the United States and the governing of the people of Guam and their rights fell to the Congress. Article IX of the Treaty of Paris declared, “The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants… shall be determined by the Congress.”

The subsequent placement of Guam on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United States effectively transferred the purview and process of determining the civil rights and political status for the people of Guam to the United Nations. The ratification and the acceptance of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions by the United States now governs the processes for granting the rights of the people of Guam to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, in my opinion, confers upon the people of Guam the rights contained in the applicable United Nations process.

The petition for citizenship and the subsequent granting of such citizenship by the Organic Act is consistent with the responsibility of the United States as the administrating authority over Guam to “provide progressive development of their free political institutions” in no way can be defended as the free expression of the people of Guam. Acceptance of such incremental development and the improvement in such status is not the free exercise of choosing such status and most certainly not the will of the people. It is still a will imposed upon the people—no matter how generous, no matter how benevolent, no matter how good the administrating authority is. The true test of their goodness is when we decide on our own what we want for ourselves and they support it. Unfortunately, they have not been good.

When we talk about self-determination, one of the key elements of this exercise is the free and educated expression of the people’s right in determining their political status for themselves. As the administrating authority, it is the responsibility of the United States to fund the education process, so that the status option, whichever one is selected is not the status offered by those who have the most money to present their case.

An educated choice is the essential element in the exercise of self-determination and the people must be educated on the promise and the reality of each option to ensure a free choice.

Who are the people vested with the right of self-determination? It is clear that these people are the native inhabitants of a territory who are living under a political status or part of a political relationship with another state without their free expression to do so. These are the people to which the United Nations Charter speaks to as the colonial peoples of the non-self governing territories. Beginning with the Guam Legislature’s empanelling of the Political Status Commission in 1973, the struggle by the people of Guam to exercise their right to self-determination as recognized under the international law was initiated. A special Commission on the Political Status of Guam followed leading to Guam’s first political status plebiscite in 1976. The plebiscite was open to all the voters of Guam with a majority selecting the option of improved status quo.

In 1977, the federally sanctioned Constitutional Convention resulted in the draft of a constitution that was approved by the Congress but ultimately rejected by the people of Guam. The constitution was still subject to a status imposed upon the people, not of their own choosing. With a new Commission on Self-Determination in 1980, another status plebiscite, opened to all registered voters was approved. The plebiscite was held in 1982 with seven available status options. When none received a majority, a run off was held with the choice of commonwealth status eclipsing statehood by a three to one margin. For the next fifteen years, Congress and the President deferred any concrete action to approve the Guam Commonwealth Act.

The Commonwealth Act provided for Chamorro self-determination, mutual consent and immigration control, agreed to by the United States in the Covenant with the Northern Marianas. In 1997 during a congressional hearing before the House Resources Committee, it became clear that federal officials would not support these provisions in Guam’s Commonwealth Act.

With the continued inaction by the United States, the people of Guam and the leaders of Guam turn to the international basis of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination as embodied by the acceptance of the United States of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions which clearly outline the process for the decolonization of a people who remain under the list of non-self governing territories. This foray into accepting a constitution, drafting a constitution, voting on a constitution without the freely expressed wishes of the people as to the political status upon which this constitution will be used to govern, is what is missing.

From that failure, the direction has changed. It is now the policy of the people of Guam to seek first the expression of our right to self-determination through the freely exercised vote on a plebiscite for the statuses available to us under the United Nations articles and resolutions. No granting of any amount of internal self-governance without the people of Guam first freely voting on the political status that frames such self-governance can be interpreted as an expression and the fulfillment of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination.

We look forward to this continued effort, this continued quest of the people of Guam – the colonized people of Guam to exercise and make their fully educated choice on the options presented to us under the UN Charter and UN Resolution to fulfill the right of self-determination inherent in a people subjugated and dominated by administrating powers over the last four hundred years.

The website We Are Guahan has been posting selected testimonies from the ongoing hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the military buildup.   There have been powerful statements that the world and U.S. leaders need to hear.   DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina will be reposting some of these testimonies.  Here is a testimony submitted by a retired Army Colonel from Guam.  His family’s land is threatened with condemnation by the military.  One statement he made is almost exactly what people in Hawai’i have said about the military: “Once you take our lands away, we lose it forever.”

My name is Raymond L.G. Taimanglo. I am a retired Colonel in the U.S. Army, a resident of Guam, 53 years old and reside in the village of Yigo.

My mother Vicenta L.G. Taimanglo owned 18 hectors of land in the vicinity of AAFB(S) which was taken by the U.S. Navy after WWII. These lands are now recorded in the Wills of my siblings and me, since my mother passed away several years ago. We hope that one day our children will receive this property back. Our children will always know that the land is their own and that our nation needs it for now and that “Now” is a relative word and that “Now” could mean forever.

Once again our family is faced with another possible land taking. My wife Gwendolyn Nelson Taimanglo is a land owner in the Sasayan Valley. I am disheartened with the thought that we will lose our land once again.

In the interest of time I will begin my presentation.

The DEIS did not fully explore viable military sites for training and weapons ranges (firing ranges) because it dismissed them for various reason which raises some concerns. The military sites reviewed to construct firing ranges on the West Coast were easily dismissed. As a result, these sites or a combination thereof did not go through the rigorous step 2 alternative analysis, which may deny the decision makers the option to select a site or a combination thereof. The reasons given to dismiss the West Coast sites didn’t seem justified enough to drop them as an alternative. Concerns such as denying the use of recreational areas, restrictions on favorite dive spots, restricted ocean travel for boaters, restricted hiking trails, and possible impact on tourism, all hold true when applied to the East Coast alternative, which is the only alternative given in the DEIS. The advice given by the Office of the Governor to explore the eastern side of the island for possible alternatives made it easier to dismiss a host of sites located in the west coast of Guam. In addition, all military sites had a common caveat in dismissing potential sites that were considered, “…incompatibility with future missions.”

To simply dismiss the alternative to put a range at Tarague Valley because it was incompatible with future military missions is questionable especially when this line is used to dismiss all military sites that were considered. Once again the decision makers could be denied the benefit of selecting this alternative because of one catch all statement, “..incompatibility with future military missions’.

The Tarague Valley alternative is a good alternative since it is a convenient location for training and ranges. The Tarague Valley compliments the activities as described in the requirements list of the DEIS. This alternative must be explored and if possible selected for training and range operations in lieu of the East or West Coast alternatives. The military must strive hard to resource the buildup from within their land inventory. In addition, this alternative is consistent with the initial statement made by JPO that only existing Federal land will be used for the military buildup.

The reason to dismiss the Tarague site without undergoing the step 2 alternative analysis is suspect. Because it is not being explored as an alternative and a vague reason given for dismissal, it leads us to belief that the military is only trying to protect something. I venture to say that it could be the panoramic view and pristine beaches, parks and recreational facilities that military, dependents and their guest enjoy. If this is so, to take away more land from the people of Guam is unconscionable.

You should not take lightly the fact that a viable alternative within the military reservation has been dismissed. You have a duty to inform the approvers of the EIS prior to the Record of Decision that there are other viable alternatives besides the East Coast alternative even if the Tarague alternative possesses some constraints. I call upon the decision makers and responsible Federal officials and military leadership to challenge their planners and staff to make this alternative work for the military.

The only two alternatives offered for training ranges are in the East Coast of Guam and is really just one alternative. In reality it is an alternative within an alternative. The only real difference is the rerouting of Rt. 15 and number of acres. This is the only alternative that received a step 2 alternative analysis because all other military sites were dismissed.

The two alternatives presented in the DEIS appears to take the easy way out. As a matter of fact, the impact tables shown in the DEIS seem to communicate that in all assessment categories there were no real impact. Very one sided, if you ask me. All in favor of the preferred alternative which is the East Coast alternative.

Contrary to the impact analysis of the DEIS of the East Coast alternative, many families and users of the land within the area will be impacted. Although the land tracks are few, many people are affected. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of families that will be denied use of their family and ancestral lands. Thousands of race car enthusiast and fans will not be able to enjoy the entertainment and recreation that it already provides. Hundreds and hundreds of local, military and tourist will be restricted or not be allowed to hike to natural caves and coast lines. The potential of these lands are starting to manifest themselves. Mining of gravel to make concrete for homes and roads in support of the growth of Guam, installed infrastructure for a private golf course already exist, paved roads, power poles, and water wells that are in place but capped, all are value added to the area. All these and more are signs that the land within the East Coast alternative are viable and have potential to provide good things for Guam. It would be a travesty to use it for military training and ranges.

The Military buildup is so large of a project that it warrants close scrutiny and review. The consolidation of all the military buildup projects into one DEIS document serves no justice for the environment, military and the people of Guam.

As I go over the DEIS I noticed a pattern of cut and paste. Many of the writings are used typically in every volume. This indicates to me that the level of effort and scrutiny needed to produce a good EIS might have been jeopardized. Each major project should be a stand alone project with its own EIS so it receives a good review and all viable and feasible alternatives explored and weight so the best decision is made. It is evident by some of the tables that the buildup will have little to no impact on our environment or people. The impact tables are too supportive of the buildup that almost nothing is affected. The DEIS is so voluminous that short cuts could have been taken just to end the misery of preparing such a large document. I urge you to relook the DEIS as it is prepared. The DEIS should be redone with the approach of one project – one EIS. Although there is a sense of urgency to get the DEIS approved, you must also recognize that we can only do this once. Once you take our lands away, we lose it forever.

I want to thank the panel for the opportunity to submit my input to the DEIS. I hope that you will appreciate the points made in this presentation and take appropriate action to examine the process and out come of the DEIS as it is presented. Moreover, that this presentation and others like it will influence the decision makers and our people’s resolve that no more private land be taken and that the military buildup be kept within property boundaries of the military.

RAYMOND L.G. TAIMANGLO

Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired)

Spanish Occupation, Japanese Invasion and Being Owned by a Nation. The Chamorro people are struggling to save whats left of their language, their culture, their blood and their land.
Videographer – Cara Flores
Editor – Jason Triplett