Free association between the United States and a new Republic of Puerto Rico is a possibility — but would free association prevent U.S. military buildup?
There are three viable status options under the U.S. Constitution: statehood, territory status, and independence with or without free association. According to El Nuevo Dia, the proposed independence bill drafted by a stateside separatist group and sent to Rep. McClintock “establishes that the future of the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico should be governed exclusively by treaties and international law.” A Compact of Free Association is a treaty and free association is recognized under international law, so they may have Sovereign Free Association in mind. This is one of the three status options proposed by the Puerto Rico Status Act.
Both supporters of independence and supporters of enhanced commonwealth have recently come out in favor of Sovereign Free Association. The “sovereign” part is unnecessary, since all nations in free association with the United States are independent and therefore sovereign nations.
Free association and the U.S. military
At the same time, separatists are claiming that the recent increase in U.S. military activity in Puerto Rico is a good reason for independence. It is true that an independent Puerto Rico could refuse to allow U.S. military forces on the Island. A Republic of Puerto Rico could have its own army, navy, and air force, and refuse access to the United States military.
But the same would not be true for a freely associated state.
For one thing, military access is the whole point of COFAs for the United States. The current free associated states are all very small nations. They rely on the U.S. for their defense and security. They have delegated part of their sovereignty to the U.S. to receive that defense and security. Not only does the U.S. military have bases on these nations’ land, but the U.S. also has veto power over all security decisions.
“The compacts ensure that the United States can maintain a military presence in the Freely Associated States, and they enable compacts island citizens to serve in the U.S. military,” said Ely S. Ratner, former assistant secretary for Indo-Pacific security affairs. “These compacts provide assured access for Department of Defense operations, and they prevent would-be adversaries from accessing sovereign [Freely Associated State] FAS land, airspace and territorial waters.”
Special Presidential Envoy and chief U.S. negotiator Ambassador Joseph Yun said it a little differently: “Compact agreements are very unique in U.S. foreign policy in that the United States guarantees these island states their security. In return, these island states have given us full defense rights. Not only are we responsible for defending them, we are also responsible for keeping out anyone we – and they – deem not appropriate.”
These are the treaties involved in free association. Free association would not prevent U.S. military buildup. In fact, such a status would guarantee it.
No responses yet