SINCE the intrusion into the Mariana Islands by colonial superpowers, Guam’s political status has been relegated to the back seat. In the 17th century, when Spain claimed the Mariana Islands as a colony in the name of their queen, the Native Chamoru were not respected as stakeholders or equals, but treated as lesser beings to be subjugated. This was conventional during the time of slavery and conquest. Up until the Civil War, slaves couldn’t vote in the United States, but slave owners could get an extra vote for every three slaves they owned.

In 1898, after the Spanish American War, the Northern Mariana Islands were sold to Germany and Guam was ceded to the United States as spoils of war pursuant to the Treaty of Paris. Again, the Native Chamoru were not treated as stakeholders or equals. They were made wards of the United States, people who were citizens of no state, thus lacking any legal rights. Native Americans were viewed similarly; however, some Native American tribes were given special political status based on treaties that were made with the United States. The legal fiction of quasi sovereignty was created. The Native American tribes had very limited powers over their own affairs; tribes had no powers over non-Natives or Native Americans from other tribes; and all their “powers” were subject to the supremacy of the United States. By definition, this was not sovereignty.

Imperialism was waning at the end of the 19th century. Pursuant to the Treaty of Paris, the
United States Congress was to determine the political status and civil rights of the Native Chamoru. Anti-expansionists believed that the treaty committed the United States to a course of empire and violated the most basic tenets of the United States Constitution. They argued that neither Congress nor the president had the right to pass laws governing colonial peoples who were not represented by lawmakers. Sound familiar? Recall the Declaration of Independence? Senator Hoar of Massachusetts at that time stated, “This treaty will make us a vulgar, commonplace empire, controlling subject races and vassal states, in which one class must forever rule and other classes must forever obey.” The Treaty of Paris was narrowly ratified in the U.S. Congress.

Focused on Guam’s military strategic importance and its importance as a fueling stop for trade, the United States proceeded to establish itself on Guam. The welfare and civil rights of the Native Chamoru were not a priority. That is, until the Native Chamoru people began to protest their inequality. Under United States rule, at first, they had no ability whatsoever to influence the laws and rules, or the rulers that controlled their society. Eventually they were allowed to form an advisory body that could be, and virtually always was, vetoed by the naval governor.

After World War II, realizing just how militarily important Guam is, the United States was not planning to relinquish Guam, ever. The Native Chamoru people wanted to be treated fairly and equally to the Americans to whom they had been loyal at enormous suffering under the Japanese occupation during WWII. Next followed the granting of U.S. Citizenship and the establishment of a local legislature, followed by a presidentially appointed civilian governor, then finally a locally elected governor. Guam’s political evolution under the United States started off as non-existent, then to impotent, eventually moving into the legal fiction status of quasi-sovereign, which is what exists today. The Guam Judiciary followed a similar evolution.

The development of the Native Chamoru (as desired by the United States) was also a gradual process. Outside educators and administrators were brought in to teach, train and advise the Native Chamoru people on how to run the government and provide government services. This paradigm is similar to programs the U.S. federal government instituted for the development and betterment of federally recognized Native American tribes, programs that failed miserably because of corrupt practices of the federal administrators who were charged with the trust of tribal assets and earnings. The tribes’ assets and earning were pilfered and squandered, and in a later accounting, hundreds of billions of tribal money were unaccounted for. The tribes were not taught or allowed to be sustaining.

So here we are in 2012. Politically, Guam has evolved tremendously. Culturally, Guam has adapted and changed. The local population has evolved demographically. The local population is not only educated and professional, but also experienced. The next step in the evolution must be a political one. There must be a change in political status that doesn’t stifle local development, free trade, and utilization of resources.

Guam’s political status is a very mixed bag. The entire U.S. Constitution and all federal statutes do not apply to Guam. Guam is treated sometimes like a state and sometimes like a colony. The government of Guam does not have the ability to modify its own structure. That power rests with the U.S. Congress.

Guam needs change to move forward and prosper and be less dependent on the federal government. Guam needs change that considers its unique circumstances, change that respects the local population as stakeholders and empowers the stakeholders to effectively pursue sustainable prosperity.

As a state, Guam could prosper tremendously because Guam will be taken seriously in Congress. It would be ideal if the entire Mariana Islands chain could consolidate and become a state. As a state, the Mariana Islands would bring a lot to the table. As a state, the Mariana Islands would also stand to lose more of its culture (see Hawaii).

As an independent nation, Guam would be free of the hindrances that currently bind its hands and artificially drive up the cost of living and the cost of doing business on Guam. Eventually Guam could become prosperous and the cost of living would rise, but so too would the standard of living and the average household income (see Singapore).

Whatever political change is chosen, Guam and/or the Mariana Islands as a whole will see both benefits and sacrifices. I can see why so many would just prefer the status quo.

Pete Santos,
Ft. Hood, Texas