On Guam as a Colony Letter to the Editor by Eddie L.G. Benavente Mangilao, Guam (Marianas Variety)
I found Dr. Ron McNinch?s recent column, ?Politics and Status? quite interesting. (Mar ianas Variety Guam March 10, 2011.)
I just find it amusing that he would use one issue , although significant, to be the wake- up call for our leaders to realize we?ve been ignored for a long time.
The political reality is that Washington historically has always ignored grievances expressed by our political leaders, since the early 1900s.
Dr. McNinch argues that Guam is not really a colony. Like his predecessors of the same affinity, he paints a rosy picture that Guam is pretty much self-governing.
I initial ly thought perhaps the professor didn?t understand the concepts of colonization, non-s elf-governing territories, full self-government, de-colonization and self-determinatio n in the context of international definition and application.
However, his credentials at the University speak for themselves.
His ?bottom line simple approach? in resolving our problems with the federal governmen t gives the impression that achieving a new political status is pretty much petty and for the moment.
I thought the professor had a profound approach for the administering power to finally comply with treaties so our people can finally have the opportunity t o exercise their right to self-determination.
But this was not the case.
Instead, like others before him, he tends to ridicule and put the blame on our self-defeating government and cowardly local leaders.
Moreover, McNinch suggests perhaps we should move toward an organic-act constitution, (the old ?cart before the horse? which literally means ?let?s forget about political s tatus and settle for a constitution?).
He then concludes by asserting that independenc e and free association are not very good status options.
Wow! That leaves statehood as the only option, as opposed to the three choices in the Treaty.
He defends this assertion by saying that with the exception of Singapore all o ther nations have become ?Third World.?
I couldn?t believe these suggestions were coming from a learned individual who teaches in Guam?s highest institution of learning.
What does this all mean? Does it mean that independence is only good for some nations and not for others?
Are nations who choose independence not entitled to evolve?
How and who measures what constitutes ?Third Wor ld??
Would Belau or the Republic of the Philippines, for example, fall under his definition of Third World? Or are the people who hold this mindset just making these absurd assertions to maintain the status- quo?
Could it be that the political science professor is not aware of the Treaty signed and ratified by the United States back in December, 1946?
Is McNinch aware that the Treaty of 46? requires the United States Mission to the Unit ed Nations to submit reports annually to the Secretary General and other entities with in the United Nations regarding Chamoru political, social and economic development?
If we were truly self-governing why would the administering power continue to report t o the UN on Guam?s political development?
He said it himself, that when he writes, it is in his nature to agitate some people. I welcome any intellectual discourse on the s ubject of self-determination, but reject any notion that ?all is good? in a colony.
A detractor to the process of de-colonization and someone who advocates perpetual hegemony of a people is no different than a slave master who opposes the emancipation of blacks.
I truly feel that these political experts should stop coming up with unrealistic solutions.
There is a system already in place that was conceived by the United States and 50 other nations back in 1946. Over a hundred nations within the United Nations have gone through this process. There are only 16 Territories remaining that have yet to de-colonized, Guam being one of them.