UN Testimony of Phillip Arroyo

Good morning Members of the United Nations Sub Committee on Decolonization Special Committee of Twenty Four (24). My name is Phillip Arroyo and as a proud Puerto Rican- American, I am standing here today on behalf of the Young Professionals for Puerto Rico Democracy and Self-Determination (YPPRDSD), a group of individuals that have decided to assume their historical responsibility with regards to the final resolution of the status of Puerto Rico.

In 1953, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 748 (VIII), with respect to cessation of annual reports by the United States as the administering power for Puerto Rico under Article 73(e) of the United Nations Charter. Paragraph nine (9) of Resolution 748 acknowledges that the federal-territorial association established by Congressional authorization and approval of a locally adopted constitution was not a permanent, final or ultimate political status. Rather, paragraph nine (9) contemplates an on-going self-determination process that can be imitated by either the federal government of the constitutional government of the territory for full and final completion of the decolonization process for Puerto Rico.

Resolution 748 represents a determination by the United Nations that adoption of a local constitution for internal self-government gave the inhabitants a sufficient degree of self-government to achieve further self-determination and ultimate status resolution in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the residents of Puerto Rico. There is no other logical interpretation of Resolution 748 given its specific content, and its approval by the United Nations in the same session that the General Assembly approved resolution 742 (VIII), prescribing the criteria of the United Nations for cessation of reporting under Article 73(e) as determined by the United Nations.

United Nations Resolutions 1541 and 1514 of 1960, and Resolution 2626 of 1970, further clarified and more precisely defined the political status options available to non-self-governing areas. The status options recognized under those resolutions have been and remain available to Puerto Rico.

The history of the evolution of the commonwealth status in Puerto Rico has been richly documented and we do not pretend to promulgate the precepts of any partisan organization in regards to the interpretation of historical events. However, said history demonstrates why it was long-overdue for the American administration to clarify the actual status options for Puerto Rico, and the White House report issued in December of 2005 provides the basis for Congress to now sponsor an informed act of self-determination. The Report was prepared as a result of President Clinton’s executive order creating the Presidential Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status.

This Report provides a legally sound and politically realistic framework for completion of the decolonization process for Puerto Rico that began with the adoption of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 748 (VIII) in 1953. The White House report accurately describes the obstacles Puerto Rico has encountered in its internal self-determination process that have impeded full and final decolonization of Puerto Rico. The report also recognizes the need for the federal government to take affirmative steps to define the options for status resolution, by sponsoring a mechanism for self-determination with respect to options that are recognized under United States and international law, including applicable United Nations resolutions.

Nevertheless, the local political party that favors the continuation of the current commonwealth status, albeit in enhanced form, is supporting a process of self-determination through the creation of a local constitutional convention. However, such a process would merely repeat the same internal political dialogue that has failed to produce status resolution for five decades. The goal of the party that favors commonwealth status is to prevent full and final decolonization by interposing legally invalid and politically incompatible proposals for enhanced commonwealth that repeatedly garner an artificial plurality and obstruct self-determination on real options leading to a true majority vote for a non-territorial and non-colonial status.

In addition, the proposal for a local convention on status could only be implemented through an amendment to the local constitution, not through unilateral federal legislation. Article VII, Section 2 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico requires a 2/3’s vote of the electorate to convene a constitutional convention, and the commonwealth party proposal for a convention called under federal law would require a unilateral federal amendment of the local constitution by statute, which is not something that a local government official can propose consistent with the oath of office to serve under the local Constitution.

Finally, in 1953 the United States circulated a legal memorandum to the general Assembly before Resolution 748 was passed. That memo made it clear that the legal meaning of commonwealth was subject to federal court interpretation. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Puerto Rico remains a United States territory. Those who argue that the White House report on Puerto Rico’s status contradicts the record in the United Nations on Resolution 748 are wrong.

In the 1980 case of Harris v. Rosario (446 US 651) the United States Supreme Court ruled that Puerto Rico remains a territory under the supreme powers of Congress and the territorial clause of the United States Constitution. The 1982 case of Rodriquez v. Popular Democratic Party (457 US 1), held that Puerto Rico is a territory with a local constitution allowing autonomy in respect of internal affairs, limited to matters not governed by federal law.

Obviously, Resolution 748 did not define or change the status of Puerto Rico under United States’ law. Congress does not have the power to delegate or cede its residual sovereignty and plenary powers over the territory to the local constitutional government. Nonetheless, a discussion of Resolution 748 (VIII) appears in United States House of Representatives Report 104-713, Part 1, July 26, 1996, at pages 11-15.

In conclusion, the present commonwealth system of self-government was a step forward in 1953, but its legal nature has been misrepresented in the internal political status debate, and it has become an anachronism. All political parties in Puerto Rico seek a non-territorial status (not under territorial power of United States Congress) with full democratic self-government at the national level. Local powers of self-government authorized by federal statute, enacted under the territorial power of Congress, do not create a constitutionally defined permanent status with full and equal political and civil rights of national citizenship. Full self-government at national level is not possible through any statutory measures allowing special or substitute political rights under the commonwealth structure of internal self-government, which is limited to local matters not governed by federal law.

Therefore, to complete the decolonization process the current state of annexation and partial integration must be ended in favor of full integration, free association between sovereign nations, or independence as recognized under United States and international law. While it may be technically true that the United Nations no longer has responsibility or oversight regarding the political status of Puerto Rico, the long delay in status resolution makes it important that United States citizens from Puerto Rico step forward and prevent misleading information about the territory’s status process from being disseminated in this body or anywhere else.

Thank You Mr. Chairman