For the 42nd time, the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations discussed a resolution affirming Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination. This year, the Committee chose not to approve the resolution and will not send it on to the General Assembly of the United Nations.
The resolution was presented by Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria and Russia, all nations known for poor records on human rights and with weak U.S. ties. These nations argued in favor of independence, with some saying that the United Nations should impose independence on Puerto Rico through implementation of international law.
In a discussion lasting five hours, 51 representatives spoke up for either independence or statehood as means of decolonization for Puerto Rico.
For democracy
Several speakers, including representatives from the United States and Puerto Rico, called for pressure on the United States to acknowledge the democratically expressed will of the voters of Puerto Rico, referring to the referenda in the 21st century, all of which have resulted in winning votes for statehood.
“Even though several people come here asking for independence and mistakenly stipulate that it is the only way to decolonize Puerto Rico, they are not asking for the opportunity to solve this issue using the most democratic vehicle, the popular vote,” said Yadira O’Farrill, a member of the Congressional Extended Delegation-Georgia Chapter.”I prefer statehood, a valid form of decolonization, turning Puerto Rico into a sovereign state in the United States of America, like the other fifty states. I also prefer to stand next to democracy, the right to vote, freely determine our political status and pursue economic, social, and cultural development. We need equality, dignity, and power. We do not want a Constitutional Assembly in dark rooms if we can go and vote in the daylight.”
Jose Enrique Melendez, speaking for LULAC, also expressed anger that the U.S. Congress ignored the three votes in favor of statehood. He and the representative from Cuba had a terse exchange on whether Cuba was hostile to the United States, and on freedom of speech. The Cuban representative also asked that one of the representatives from Puerto Rico be silenced, at which point the representative from Puerto Rico said, “In favor of Puerto Rico, I can say whatever I want, because I am in a nation where speech is completely free. Over there in those countries where they don’t let their people speak and repress them, well, here that can’t be done.”
Angel Javier Serrano, another speaker for statehood, called for the United Nations to encourage awareness of the inequity created by Puerto Rico’s colonial position.
Taking the issue out of Congress’s hands
Some speakers, however, spoke against the democratic option. Edison Diaz, of New York Boricua Resistance, said that “colonialism is not a matter of discussion nor should it be decided by bourgeois electoral politics.”
Adrián González Costa, speaking for Puerto Rican Independence Party, called for Congress to “comply with their decolonization obligation.” More than one speaker called for the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on the situation. These speakers claimed that the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States was not an internal affair which could be handled through voting.
Other speakers demanded the withdrawal of the United States from Puerto Rico.
U.S. response
As has been true in previous years, the United States government did not send representatives to the meeting. Thus far, the United Nations General Assembly has not accepted or acted on any of the Decolonization Committee’s calls for action for Puerto Rico, and does not agree that Puerto Rico is a colony. The U.S. federal government, too, seems to consider the matter closed as of 1953, when Puerto Rico’s constitution was approved by the U.S. Congress and it was removed from the U.N. list of colonies.
“The use of loaded terms such as ‘colonial’ and ‘self-determination’ to characterize Puerto Rico’s territorial status are underhanded attempts to place the status question within the context of international law instead of the United States Constitution, where it belongs,” wrote Andrés L. Córdova, a law professor at Inter American University of Puerto Rico, after the similar discussion by the Decolonization committee in 2022.
