The proposed Puerto Rico Status Act (PRSA) shines a spotlight on the unusual free association arrangements that the U.S. has with three Pacific Island nations: Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM).
Puerto Rican observers are now wondering if a similar relationship would work for a sovereign Puerto Rico.
Extensive U.S. military authority is a defining aspect of free association, which could prove complicated for Puerto Rico.The U.S. Navy once had a strong military presence on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, but Navy ships and personnel were forced to leave by 2003 amid a sea of anger and animosity by the local population.
With this historical backdrop, it is notable that Joel Ehrendreich, the U.S. Ambassador to Palau, recently assured a skeptical audience in Palau of the value of U.S. military presence.
The conversation reported in Tia Belau News, a Palau-based publication, stated that the U.S. ambassador “addressed concerns about the growing US military presence in Palau,” and related fears that the U.S. military installation could cause Palau to be seen as “a target.” Stories about the “extreme nature of combat” on Palau’s Peleliu island during World War II are well known among the Palauan population and contribute to heightened concern about renewed military activity in the small nation.
Given the history of Vieques, it seems possible, and even likely, that residents of Puerto Rico may have similar concerns in a U.S.-Puerto Rico free association arrangement.
Benefits of U.S. military presence in freely associated states
Ehrendreich described the relationship between the U.S. and Palau in glowing terms. The military presence, he said, “fosters a partnership that safeguards vital sea lanes, promotes regional security, and creates a stable environment for economic prosperity.”
He also listed some specific economic benefits for Palau. For example, he shared that U.S. military presence brought an additional $43 million to Palau in the past year for housing U.S. military personnel and their related local expenses. Ehrendreich also noted that the U.S. spent money locally on road maintenance and construction of a baseball field.
Palau, a nation of less than 20,000 citizens, has no military of its own. Palau’s residents, who are Palauan citizens and not dual U.S. citizens, can nonetheless serve in the U.S. Armed Services and many choose to do so. As a foreign country, Palauans have no access to U.S. social safety net programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Divided opinions
Last month, Radio New Zealand reported that the government of Palau was divided on the question of expanded military presence in their nation.
At the time of the report, a resolution had been introduced in the Palau government. “The resolution encourages the President to work with the United States government to establish a United States military base in Palau,” RNZ reported. “And it also gives the President permission to go ahead and start a formal discussion with the United States to establish military bases in Palau, even though Palau has a compact of association with United States defense and security.”
The United States has military access to Palau, but does not currently have permanent bases there. In 2020, the then-President of Palau invited the United States to build military bases on the island.
What about Puerto Rico?
The Puerto Rico Status Act, currently under consideration in both the U.S. House and Senate, offers Puerto Rico voters three options for Puerto Rico’s political status. One is “sovereign free association,” which is the arrangement Palau has with the United States. All three independent nations in free association with the United States accept U.S. military presence and authority for defense and security. Would Puerto Rico be willing to do the same?
U.S. Navy presence on Vieques prompted violent protests. From 1940 to 2001, the Navy used Vieques as a site for training bomber pilots. The death of a civilian guard in 1999 set off actions which led to the complete closure of the naval base. On the day set for the Navy’s withdrawal, violent protests took place. There are still environmental concerns about the toxic substances left on Vieques by the bomb testing, though the Navy does not agree that there is still cleaning to be done.
In a press conference in 2000, a reporter asked President Clinton about controversy in Vieques, “[D]o you believe in your heart that Puerto Rico’s colonial status is the root of this problem or is related to Puerto Ricans’ ambivalence to issues of national security?”
The President responded, “I think the root of the problem is twofold. One is, as the Pentagon has acknowledged that the 1983 agreement was not followed in letter and spirit. They have acknowledged that. That left a bad taste in the mouths of the people of Vieques and of all Puerto Rico. Problem two is the unwillingness of the Congress to give a legislatively sanctioned vote to the people to let them determine the status of Puerto Rico. Now, I think those are the roots of the problem.”
Given Puerto Rico’s past responses to U.S. military presence, it is important for future Puerto Rican voters to recognize that continued military presence is an inherent part of U.S. Compacts of Free Association.
