Resident Commissioner Pablo José Hernandez made an appearance at the House Committee on Natural Resources’ Oversight Hearing on “Examining the Office of Insular Affairs’ Role in Fostering Prosperity in the Pacific Territories and Addressing External Threats to Peace and Security.” His constituency, Puerto Rico, is not in the Pacific, but he had some questions to ask.
The resident commissioner’s questions
“Do you believe that Congress can enter into democratic relationships with its territories in the Pacific through, for example, a covenant, like the Mariana Islands?” he asked witness Cleo Paskal, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Ms. Paskal described the covenant between the U.S. and the CNMI as “a consensual relationship.”
“So the answer would be yes,” said Hernandez crisply. He moved immediately to his next question. “Do you think it’s legitimate for territories like American Samoa to decide on their own that it’s a fair trade-off for example not to vote for the President of the United States but to have their own system of land management and be able to protect that?”
Paskal said that the relationships among the Pacific territories and the United States were all different.
“I completely agree and I really hope that this committee in the future takes all that into account,” Hernandez responded. “The people of the territories and commonwealths have a right to decide their own future and that should include any option that the people in the territories and commonwealths want to pursue in accordance to their history, their interests, and their democratic values.”
Hernandez went on to ask questions of another witness, Francisco Bencosme, former China Policy Lead for the federal government.
“We know the Commonwealths are not just plain territories,” he said, Are the territories and commonwealths better protected from foreign influence than the free associated states?”
Bencosme prefaced his comments by pointing out that he doesn’t know much about territories, and stated that the United States does its best to protect the free associated states.
“Would you say that the territories and commonwealths’ financing is more secure than the finances of the free associated states under USAID?” Hernandez continued.
Bencosme again said that he didn’t work with territories, but on being pressed, agreed that in principal the current upheaval in the USAID could be seen as a threat to the financial stability of the FAS.
Hernandez had one more question, which he directed to Paskal.
“It’s been decades since the organic acts and the convenant have been revised. Would it be positive for the democratic nature of these relationships for Congress to engage with the territories and commonwealths to periodically revise and enhance these arrangements?”
Paskal pointed out that she is Canadian and therefore has no knowledge on this point, making it impossible for Hernandez to go with, “In other words yes.” Instead, he said, “But if they wanted to, would that be a legitimate exercise of democratic self-government?”
Paskal agreed that engagement is a good thing and suggested that it would be necessary to hold “transparent discussions.”
The purpose of the questions
The resident commissioner often seemed far more emotional than might be expected in discussions of territories and independent nations on the other side of the world. Questions may be asked for many different purposes, though, and the point of these questions is clear.
First, Hernandez was suggesting that “territories and commonwealths” are different things. It is clear that Puerto Rico, officially titled the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, is a territory like other territories just as Kentucky, officially titled the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is a state like other states. Supporters of the fantasy of “enhanced commonwealth” do not agree with the U.S. government on this point. Hernandez said, “We know the Commonwealths are not just plain territories,” but it is not clear what he had in mind when he said, “we.” Certainly the other people in the room with him know that Puerto Rico is just a plain, unincorporated territory.
Second, he was arguing that being a territory was a democratic option. In recent years, it has been broadly agreed that, as the previous Chair of the Natural Resources Committee said, Puerto Rico has already rejected territory status. The status quo has therefore not been included in the Puerto Rico Status Act or the most recent status votes. Only non-territorial, non-colonial options have been included. By emphasizing that American Samoa has a good reason to want to keep its status as a territory, Hernandez hopes to suggest that Puerto Rico does, too.
Third, he was preparing the ground for discussion of “enhanced commonwealth.” Hernandez, a supporter of this impossible status option, wants to “revise and enhance” the current territorial relationship in ways which are contrary to the U.S. Constitution. By arguing for the viability of “any option,” he hopes to sideline the fact that Congress, the executive branch, and the U.S. courts including the Supreme Court have all rejected the notion of “enhanced commonwealth” as unconstitutional and impossible under the law.
Finally, Hernandez wanted to point out the disadvantages of being a free associated state, compared with being a territory. Territories are, he suggested, safer and more financially stable. This is probably true. It wasn’t relevant to the content of the hearing and the witnesses seemed dumbfounded by the questions, but Hernandez made his point.
What next?
We anticipate that Hernandez will at some point in the future claim that the expert witnesses called by the committee agreed with him that Congress should meet to work out the details of an “enhanced commonwealth.” Hernandez has already publicly claimed that, even though 58% of the voters in 2024 chose statehood among the viable options, the vote actually showed that a minority of voters wanted statehood.
Transparent discussions, as Paskal pointed out, are the best kind.
No responses yet