The changing images at the end of this message are perhaps the strongest and perhaps only reason why Puerto Rico should become a state. These Puerto Rican military people died so that all Americans, which most definitely include Puerto Ricans, should have a government that provides for all the needs of the all people. They did not die for any particular status option or political party. And certainly not for one political leader who claims to be the Messiah or the only one who can lead Puerto Rico to statehood. When we make partisan issues and status our primary and overwhelming concern at the expense of not providing decent housing, education, health benefits, economic security, protection of the environment and whatever else is necessary for the common good of the people, we are not honoring these brave Puerto Ricans of the Iraq War and previous wars. We are insulting their sacrifice and memories. They deserve better from Puerto Rico's so-called political leaders always pushing status power plays rather than good government.

Self-serving, super partisan politicians please study these images carefully. Look into each face of Puerto Rican youths who are no longer with their families. What are you doing for their families who still grieve the ultimate sacrifice they made? Isn't it time to do government for, by and of the people regardless of political parties?

I would like to know how CEFUS honors these brave Puerto Ricans. Action speak louder than words. Does CEFUS believe in convergence with all the political parties working together to provide for the needs of the people rather than the self-serving wants of a political party in power? What is CEFUS doing to promote effective government between now and 2008? Is CEFUS going to develop convergence or turn up the heat for greater conflicts and stalemates within the statehood party and between the statehood party and the party for the status quo and for independence? Is CEFUS for status politics more than effective government for the people? Could CEFUS be for a truce and healing process for better government without stalemates?

If Puerto Rico remains a political mess and becomes an even greater political mess, don't expect any positive response from the federal government or support from Americans living in the fifty states. Today, because of the internal fighting in the New Progressive Party and the fighting between the NPP and the Popular Democratic Party, the opportunities for statehood is about nil. It is not Congress that should wake up as CEFUS proclaims on its web site homepage, it is Puerto Rico, especially its political parties, that should wake up.

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world -- Like a Colossus, and we petty men -- Walk under
his huge legs, and peep about -- To find ourselves dishonorable graves. -- Men at some time are

masters of their fates; -- The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, -- But in ourselves, that we are

underlings. -- --Shakespeare

#1. Does CEFUS believe in convergence with all the political parties working together to provide for the needs of the people rather than the self-serving wants of a political party in power?

We strongly believe that partisan politics on both the island and mainland are what have kept Puerto Rico in a political limbo for over a century. We were very hopeful that the tri-partisan bill would pass and extremely disappointed with the Governors veto thereof.

#2. What is CEFUS doing to promote effective government between now and 2008?

As we all know there is only so much we can do...on our end we have been and continue to meet with elected officials here on the mainland in order to educate them about the status issue and the urgent need to resolve the status issue(so that pressing island ills may be addressed effectively). As you may be aware, increasing contention on the island between the political parties is precisely what keeps the island in its present colonial state...consensus must be reached. Likewise, Congress has the ultimate authority over what will come of the Puerto Rico status issue (whether we like it or not) which is why we speak to these political leaders.

#3. Is CEFUS for status politics more than effective government for the people?

We believe that the status issue is directly related to the island government. It is evident that the needs of the island's constituents will not be met based on continuing partisan politics. Moreover, the present "shared government" makes this even harder as legislators bicker over legislative proposals presented by their counterparts.

#4 CEFUS mission is to provide a non-partisan perspective on this issue in order to move it forward (in other words we do believe in consensus...we are tired of the deadlock partisan politics create).

I hope this clarifies....Take time to read our Weekly Words www.cefus.net in order to learn more.

P.S. The comments that are posted by Jose Aponte, are not by the Aponte of which you refered to. FYI. Thanks

I would like to respond to N's comments about me being misinformed to international law. What I meant about the only option between statehood and independence is that the only options for Puerto Rico that are viable are statehood and independence. Now there are two forms of independence, the complete version or one of free association. Free association is a form of political independence and that is what I mean when I posted the previous statement. International law recognizes three viable status options for Puerto Rico and two are politically independent. I'm glad that the populares can find refuge within the status of free association. Just because I am for statehood doesn't mean I am trying to hide the option of free association. However, just because you are against statehood I feel you are unaware of the truth of free association or your hiding the truth. I fortunately know the truth and will be happy to post it. The enhancement of the commonwealth status will with out a doubt never be accepted by the United States Congress. Definitely not by Republicans and I am sure most Democrats would be against it as suggested by comments from senator Joe Biden from Delaware. PPD leaders have tried it and the U.S. has declined it. What average populares don't understand is that free association is not an enhanced commonwealth. This enhanced commonwealth option was already openly rejected by Congress. Free association is a form of independence in which the U.S. would be in charge of defense. That means the U.S. would stop funding every aspect of the Puerto Rican government that would have to do with education, infrastructure, law enforcement, health care, etc. The U.S. government doesn't recognize dual citizenship so movement back in forth will not be so easy and free, especially with the post 9/11 environment and the location of Puerto Rico in drug trafficking market. It is highly unlikely that the United States would allow Puerto Rico to maintain the U.S. dollar. If you add Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau population together it doesn't add up to a significant fraction of Puerto Rico's population. Free association is idependence with benefits that the United States will give, not the benefits that Puerto Rico will want. Judging from the tone of your comments your thoughts might be the way they are due to the bickering between the PNP and the PPD. Politics in Puerto Rico are extremely partisan and that is a bad sign for the political situation. Both people that want statehood and populares will twist themselves into a partisan pretzel to defend their parties regardless of the truth. The truth is that the only gaurantee of great Puerto Rican livelihood that I am positive of is statehood. I am not scared of the loss of culture or language because there is something called the Bill of Rights that protects that. You stated that populares would never vote for statehood, but that sounds like anger towards the opposing party. I know this is false because I've personally already convinced several populares to begin looking into statehood, especially when I showed them Anibal's history in Congress. I myself made the mistake to say that I would never vote for a Republican in the U.S. Then I realized that you have to look at the candidate for a position and not twist yourself in a partisan pretzel. There are several Republicans that are capable, including Arnold in California. I do not agree with the PPD or the PNP, both parties have shown their selfish interests. I agree with any politian that has the peoples best interests in mind. Whether it be from the PNP or the PPD, I would vote for the best candidate for the position not for a party label. However, I would like to state that the political process is very difficult and that is something most people don't understand. A magic wand isn't waved and all of a sudden Puerto Rico is an independent nation with free association to the United States. The proposed free association package must pass through the United States Congress and I will gaurantee you the U.S. will not give Puerto Rico the parting gifts that the international law states it is able to give. In the end of foreign policy each nation will always look for their best interests. It is not in the United States' interests to give all of these perks to Puerto Rico. The best you could hope for with free association is defense and maybe a few other minor benefits. In conclusion, understand that free association and enhanced commonwealth are two completely different things.

The rhetoric that Free Association and Independence are one in the same is simply another twist that statehooders add to the debate thinking that in that way they will scare voters to turn to this option. They know it is a valid and internationally recognized status option which the populares like us will turn to when the fiction of the current ELA finally comes to the forefront. I agree with you that "enhanced commonwealth", as presented by the PPD in the past, is unattainable in my opinion under US law and is unlikely to have support in Congress. However, you are wrong when you say that "enhanced commonwealth" is only defined by what the PPD currently has in its platform. Enhanced commonwealth in my view is in fact free association because it is a real "estado libre asociado". Our free association could still be named "ELA de PR". But the issue of names is unimportant. What matters is the substance. I believe Free Association is the only option that trully coincides with the aspirations of Puerto Ricans. Most of us consider our nation to be Puerto Rico, not the US. And while we want a close relationship with the US we do not want to assimilate or integrate further. The US is a great country which we respect, and want close relationships with, but it is not our country or nation, and we want to keep it that way. Under statehood assimilation is inevitable, Bill of Rights or not...That bill of rights did not do much for Hawaii (Hawaii is a nation that died and become simply became part of another). That is why I believe most Puerto Ricans, and populares, will never see statehood as an option contrary to what you say. And I mean that with no hostility, it just simply not an option for us.

In regards to the feasibility of free association I agree that it must be in the interest of both parties. That is precisely why it is feasible, because it IS in the interest of the US. You say that the US would not allow the US dollar to remain? That is ridiculous. Sovereign nations, like El Salvador and Ecuador have adopted the dollar as currency much to the delight of the US. The US benefits with the demand for the dollar. To think they would not want to keep it as the operating currency in the Caribbean is absurd. Second, the US DOES recognize dual citizenship. I dont know where you get this info. In any case what Puerto Ricans want is free movement between both countries, and this can be attained with or without citizenship. Again, it is in the interest of the US to maintain free movement of people and goods with their 5th largest trading partnet! In regards to defense, it is in the benefit of the US to keep their foothold in the Caribbean. Etc etc. It benefits both, and is what is more in tune with bot nations' realities. On the other hand, statehood a la Quebeq, which is what Puerto Rican statehood would be like, seems very risky for the US and for PR. Contrary to what you believe, most of us who support free assocation suport it because we ARE informed about it. It is not perfect but neither is statehood or independence. It is the most realistic solution to our status dilema. I invite you to read about free association in my blog page and comment on what you think:

WWW.PUERTORICOSTATUS.BLOGSPOT.COM

To N: I made a typing error with the remark on dual citizenship. I meant to say dual citizenship migration but I did not type that in. I apologize for that misunderstanding. You are correct with the implementation of the US dollar, my mistake. I learned something about economics I did not know, thank you. However, I am not lumping independence and free association together. Free association is a form of political independence, that is why I state that the choice is between statehood and independence. When I state that I am acknowledging those two forms of independence. You state that assimilation is inevitable with statehood, but how would this ever happen. Please justify the process in which Puerto Ricans would be stripped of their identities under statehood. What would Puerto Rico assimilate to? Your statements make it seem as if there is one giant American culture, but there are many identities within this country. There are several cultures that stem from regional cultures to ethnic cultures. An Italian family in New York eats different food from a Mexican family in New Mexico. People in Dixie have different political views than people from New England. How have native Hawaiian's lost there culture or charm. Now if all these people haven't been assimilated into the same culture please tell me how Puerto Ricans risk losing their culture. Hawaii is a poor example because it is true that the Hawaii today and the pre-U.S. Hawaii are different, but Hawaii today and pre-U.S. Hawaii have different population. Before the U.S. Hawaii consisted of Native Hawaiians only. Today it consists of Whites and Asians as well. However, Puerto Rico consists of Puerto Ricans, so it is an impossibility that there will be a loss of culture and uniqueness. I am not a statehood advocate that is using the lumping of free association to complete independence as a scare tactic. I personally hate the use of scare tactics because they involve selfish interests. If you cannot justify how Puerto Ricans would lose their culture than you and other populares are using that as a scare tactic. Populares know that Puerto Ricans are scared of losing their identities so they will use it as a scare tactic. If Puerto Ricans in the mainland maintain the strongest connection for their culture then how would statehood change things for those on the island. Comparisons of Puerto Rico to Quebec are absurd because Puerto Rico would be a state trying to enter the union not one attempting to establish its' own nation. You state most Puerto Ricans would never choose statehood. You give the illusion that some extreme number of people oppose statehood. 46% voted for statehood in 1998 and you know that the number would increase based on recent voting trends. Why doesn't the views of those Puerto Ricans matter to you. Why don't you acknowledge that a significant number of people want this for Puerto Rico. You state that most people don't want Puerto Rico to become a state. The truth is most Puerto Ricans don't want independence (2.5%). No matter how many soundbytes you put into free association, it is a form of political independence without many of the benefits Puerto Rico receives in its present form. The PPD leadership could all switch to free association and it won't matter. The dissention will be significant from the populares that would rather become a state than politically independent. Right now populares are saying no to both choices. That is why PPD leadership is trying to present free association on a different page than complete independence. They maybe on different paragraphs, but they're definitely on the same page.

It surprises me when people assert that there are many "cultures" living in the US. If there is one thing that characterizes the US is its assimilation of immigrants into a mainstream anglo-american culture. And YES, there is such a thing as one big and giant american culture which encompasses many things, from abstract concepts like mentalities and ways of thinking, to relationships, like family ties, to small unnoticed details, like city layouts in "downtown" and suburbs. Sure there are variations within this big culture but you may be in Miami, Seattle, Bangor or Honolulu and they all smell, feel and are American. Of coursem as I said, with variations but all clearly belonging to a greater cultural entity. That is not present in Puerto Rico. Our way of thinking is different and our Island is simply different. An example: In a Puerto Rican's mind the race factor is hardly ever present. In an American mind, (be it italian-american, african-american, asian-american, caucasian-america, cuban-american etc) race and "political corectness" present in almost every aspect of life and permeates every issue. Puerto Rico is Latin American in the way it thinks, they way it acts and one can see it in the island, its institutions, our culture, our cities, our fashion, our way of thinking etc. That is why many americans come to PR and say "it doesnt feel like the US" or, the best example, when Puerto Ricans go and live in the US they become, in a way, foreign to Puerto Ricans in the island who see them as having become "americanized" and having assimilated into the US. An example, J-Lo is of Puerto Rican parents but she is completely "american", she is not really considered by us to be really Puerto Rican. She has assimilated, which is understandable.

It seems many statehooders want to hide these facts and make believe, or maybe they truly have convinced themselves, that there are really no differences between PR and the US or that the US is this big composition of different cultures. That is not the case. US history shows assimilation as a pre-req for admission into the Union. Hawaii was not admitted until it was "americanized", utah was not admitted until its monogamy laws were abolished to reflect "american values, louisiana's language was changed upon admission to assimilate it to the rest of states, and so on...It is not coincidence that Cuba, the Phillipines, and Puerto Rico (places which passed to US sovereignity in 1898 and withstood US assimilation throughour the yeats) did not become US states with Hawaii and Alaska (places that were assimilated into the general anglo-american culture). Do not pretend or try to diminish the obvious difference in circumstances in a Puerto Rico statehood. They in fact would resemble a Quebeq like situation with one latin speaking and culturally dissimilar political entity within a general anglo-northamerican culture (with the usual sub-groups and regional differences included).

As far as people wanting statehood I never said nobody wants it in Puerto Rico. However, the mayority of us do not. That is a fact. Over 50% of us have continously rejected it. And many statehooders have an illusory and ficiontal view of statehood to the point that they believe that we would be able to continue to be represented under the Puerto Rican flag at international events and hear our national anthem when our atheltes win a medal. Trust me the nationality issue is the overriding factor in all status considerations. The US does not accept nation-states into the union. History is the best proof of this assertion. And on the Puerto Rican side we are reluctant to let our nation die in order to become a state of another. We have seen that confirmed by the rejection of statehood every time. A vote against statehood, in the minds of most, is a vote to affirm our nationality. That which statehooders reject and try to hide.

It is a way of thinking,Be it in Seattle, Miami, Honolulu or Bangor there are certain culturally american similarities which permeate society wich are simply not present in Puerto Rico. There is a sense of belonging to a greater

N, I'm sure we could agree that Puerto Rico must maintain a level of economic well being that has become our way of life. I've been too the Bahamas and Jamaica, while my family has made trips to the Dominican Republic and Mexico. From what I have seen and from what I have heard from my family is that these places are very impoverished. These places have no resemblance to Puerto Rico or our way of life. Our similarities are Latin culture (exception Jamaica and Bahamas) but are way of life is not so similar. With free association or independence how could you prove to Puerto Ricans that there way of life would be maintained. Education, judicial systems, health care etc. must be funded, so how would these forms of government provide for that? How would these governments provide a good economy? The people know that with statehood their way of life will not stay the same but it will improve. I am sure your aware of the loophole in funding to the territories. Maybe our leaders can negotiate maintaining the flag at international events, maybe not. I'd like to see who would dare touch my flag that I hang on my wall though. However, in the choice between maintaining a boxer that receives a medal in the olympics are improving health care, education, law enforcement, etc. lets so what the people have to choose. It is also an invalid argument to say we will be stripped of our culture and admitted into the U.S. super culture because there is no means by which a process such as that would occur. Running an effective society will be expensive, that is just reality.

E, Your arguments as to the "economic perils" of free association or independence are cold war arguments that date back to last century. The world has so drastically changed that what benefitted us in the past economically and saved us from the poverty and hardship present today in many countries is precisley what is holding us back from progress today. In this world of global economics and interdependence Puerto Rico has its hands tied because it does not have the political powers to enter into economic and trade agreements with other nations. We are shut out from regional and international organizations. We are forced to use US ships in all our trade which are the costliest ships in the world. We are begining to see this reality as countries, similar in dimension to Puerto Rico, that were once below our economic standards of have surpassed us by far. Example: Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, Barbados etc. Just today in El Nuevo Día an article titled "Economía dominicana avanza mientras Puerto Rico queda rezagada" shows that our current situation is detrimental to our economic growth and development. It is impossible to compare a sovereign Puerto Rico (which already has an infrastructure, foreign investments and a qualified labor force) with counties like Mexico or Jamaica who were not fortunate enough to have these circumstances upon their independence. Your proposition is that we chose statehood for money. That is not only sad but is also the wrong reasons to want to join another country. In your mind Puerto Rico should continue to be dependent on US funds forever without ever striving to be a self sufficient economy. As I mentioned before our current lack of political powers is what impedes our growth and maintains a fictituous economy based on funds provided by the US. With free association we can implement an economic model where the goal will be to REDUCE dependence on US funds as our economy becomes self-sufficient. Instead you chose to be complacent with statehood as way of keeping the island economy dependent on US funds at the expense of our nationality. With the economic powers and our strategic geographic location we are the natural economic and commercial hub of the Caribbean (as Hong Kong or Singapore are to Asia). The "megapuerto" currently in progress is a key element in our development. We are already the banking and financial center of the Caribbean, as well as the tourist hub for the rest of the Caribbean. Our goal should be to achieve the political powers necessary to consolidate our role as the economic and trade hub of the region. Like Singapore, we would be better of than we are now. We have the capacity, talent and location to achieve it. Let us not limit ourselves or sell ourselves short by being complacent with a fictitious economy under statehood based on complete reliance on US funds. You say statehood will imporive people's lives? How? Do you think transfers of money solve anything? Has our dependence attitude and reliance on funds lead us to a place we want to be at? We are in a situation where our children's education is severly lacking (not because of public funding but because of the lack of understanding of ourselves and our own contry). A situation where crime is rampant (not because of lack of money but because of illegal immigration we dont have the power to control and drug wars which affect us) etc. I do not see how statehood would solve any of these problems, only prolongue them and destroy us as a nation in the process. As far as economic reasons, the typicall scare tactics of the statehooders screaming "poverty!!" and of pointing towards the DR or Jamaica simply are laughable at this day and age. These arguments are disconnected with international reality and are as ludicrous as claiming that Puerto Rico would fall to comunism under free association or independence. Then again, that is an argument which, believe it or not, is stil present among many statehood supporters!! Bottom line, the economic argument is outdated and even if it was not $ can not be the reason why a people want to join a union. I would like to see the reaction from Americans when confronted with a statehood petition where most Puerto Ricans (like youself) want to negotiate our OWN participation as a nation in international events (that is, we dont want to go under the US flag or anthem), where more than half the population does NOT consider the US its nation, where we refuse to use the Union's de facto language in our public schools, universities or courts, where (like you state) we will refuse to assimilate to the American way of being...we are simply in it for the $ and funds. Good luck with that one! Statehood has no possibility given Puerto Rico's national reality. Face it.

N, the benefits of an economy that you just described will only benefit a few (such as yourself). The economic model you presented is probably beneficial for you, but is definitely out of touch with the average person. The recalibration of the Puerto Rican economy under statehood would allow Puerto Rico not only to fix its' current problems but also focus attention on the private sector, WHICH is the key in order to improve the Puerto Rican economy. My grandfather made something out of nothing creating has own business in Aguadilla. I myself attend on creating a business in Puerto Rico. The private sector must be strong in order for the Puerto Rican economy to do well, that is obvious. Your argument would have a few Puerto Rican companies doin well in the global economy, but what about the average person. Your either selfish or too optimistic. My family which was once largely populares have switched to statehood advocates. They know the current situation is not productive and they will not be fooled by selfish interests. I'm sure the fallout is similar among other Puerto Rican families as well. Be realistic about free association. By the way I never stated that Puerto Rico would become Communist.

On what basis do you argue that a developed economy will only benefit a few? That is the same tired rhetoric of the past. A developed economy as the one I've described is what promotes private business. Dependency on welfare and public funds actually reduces private business. The private sector would boom in Puerto Rico. It is clear you have no understanding of the global economy. Investment in the island brings with it business opportunities and demand for our goods and services. I invite you to look at Singapore as an example where the average singaporean (not a few, like you mention) earns almost double what an average Puerto Rican earns. In any case it is clear that you are complacent with basing our economy on transfer of funds from the US and welfare checks. What you call a "recalibration" of our economy under statehood is simply more dependency on US funds and less productivity for the Puerto Rican people in the public and private sector. Sorry, that idea is simply not acceptable to me. Before asking me to be realistic about free association you should read about the modern international economy and the success that many newly sovereign countries (like the Asian NIC's) have had adapting their economy to this world trend. Even the DR's economy is growing at a faster rate than ours. You keep advocating and being complacent with dependency and selling out our nation. I in turn, will advocate for a moder economy aimed at self sufficiency and defend my nation. That is the difference between statehooders and puertorriqueñistas.

I have an understanding of the global economy, but I have a realistic outlook on Puerto Rico's ability to compete in it with your model. Your comparing Puerto Rico with nations like Singapore that are in extremely different position economically. You give example of countries with huge advantages over Puerto Rico. Your radical left wing approaches are not in Puerto Rico's reality. Puerto Rico is different than these nations no matter how much rambling you do. Your optimism is out of touch with reality no matter how many stories of global success you exempflify. It is obvious that you maintain a stubborn and irrational approach to this issue that I gaurantee you most Puerto Ricans will not share. You hold things sacred that other Puerto Ricans will not and unfortunately it is just a difference of opinion.

Left wing? You have no clue whether I am a conservative or a liberal. Unoftunately most people who argue Puerto Rican politics make this same mistake unaware that one can be the most leftist statehooder and the most conservative independentista. But on issue, why is it that you believe Puerto Rico is not able to compete in the global economy? You say Singapore is in an extremely different position economically. You are right! they are not, but they were not before! However, upon achieving soveregnity they created an economic model which turned them into an Asian commercial hub. What possible advangtage could Singapore have over Puerto Rico? It is the size of VIEQUES with a population density HIGHER than ours. It is a city state with NO natural recources whatsoever, NONE. They had what Puerto Rico has, strategic location and a vibrant work force. You seem to insist that we Puerto Ricans are incompetent and that we dont have the capicty to develop a sustainable economy. Tell me, how is Puerto Rico "different" than these nations? Do you think that we are less intelligent and able than singaporeans, or barbadians, or the irish? I dont maintain a stubbor or irrational approach any more than you do. We each have our views on Puerto Rico. You believe us incapable of progress and see us forever condemned to live off US funds for subsistence. You are satisfied with this form of dependent economy based on transfers of funds and are willing to risk our nationality to secure such dependency through statehood. I believe Puerto Rico has a capable work force and an enviable stategic location which allows us, in this day and era, to achieve an economic model based on self sufficiency. I am unsatisfied with our current economic model and the economic model statehood has to offer based on eternal dependence on the US for funds. You state many Puerto Ricans do no share these views? Well I would agree somewhat with that in way. Statehooders, are contempt with believing they are americans and, as you have stated, see no shame in the current economic model. The rest of us, to some degree or another, WANT to insert Puerto Rico into the global economy in an effort to make it more self-reliant. The PPD has fought for our membership in the Org of Caribbean States, CARICOM, the Ibero-American Conference, PARLACEN, the International Tourism Org. and in the past has tried to reach trade agreements with Japan (although the US State Dept did not allow us to in the end). Of course all these things to the ridiculous and histerical critisism of the PNP who see no
problem with the fact that we cant act in our own economic interest without Washington's approval. Of course, their solution is more transfer of funds. Unfortunately these people either are complacent with this arrangement or are ignorant to the world that surrounds them into believing such economic model is the only way Puerto Rico could survive.

Coincidentally, read this article which appeared today in El Nuevo Día written by another popular.

Here are some excerpts:

Angel Ortiz Guzman, Presidente ProELA 19/08/05

"""Cuando hablamos de competitividad, nos referimos a la capacidad para competir. En el caso de Puerto Rico, la pregunta obligada que debemos hacernos es qué necesitamos para ser competitivos. La respuesta es sencilla: es necesario la soberanía y mayores poderes políticos...Necesitamos además, internacionalizar a Puerto Rico; tener la capacidad jurídica para llevar a cabo relaciones exteriores con otras naciones, concertar acuerdos, tratados económicos y comerciales e ingresar en organizaciones internacionales. Además, necesitamos desarrollar una política comercial propia que nos permita entrar en acuerdos para comprar petróleo a Venezuela a un costo mejor así como acuerdos con otros países que viabilicen y ayuden al megapuerto que estará localizado en el sur.

Necesitamos herramientas para defender y retener nuestro mercado común con Estados Unidos. Recordemos que Puerto Rico gozaba de un mercado libre de nuestros productos hacia Estados Unidos. Hoy en día, México y Canadá gozan del acceso al mercado estadounidense...

Es necesario que logremos la eliminación de las leyes federales de cabotaje que nos obligan a transportar en barcos con bandera americana, lo cual nos permitiría bajar sustancialmente el costo de transportación de nuestros productos.

Si queremos ser competitivos en el siglo XXI es necesaria una nueva asociación entre Puerto Rico y Estados Unidos...las relaciones entre ambos países se regirán únicamente en virtud de un tratado bilateral en que Puerto Rico delegará específicamente ciertas funciones determinadas a Estados Unidos que no sean esenciales al ejercicio de nuestra soberanía.

Debemos descartar aquellas opciones que son una camisa de fuerza para el desarrollo de nuestra nacionalidad en el marco de una comunidad internacional interdependiente. La soberanía es sólo un instrumento que nos facilitaría una digna presencia en el ámbito internacional, ocupando así el lugar que nos toca en el mundo."""

Right on the mark!!

I do not believe Puerto Rico is incompetent, but the reality is that we face different from them. Comparing Puerto Rico to places like the Dominican Republic are more realistic than comparing Puerto Rico to cities that are across the globe. Puerto Rico's problems stem from the economic loopholes that stem from the commonwealth status. You are fully aware that those loopholes will cease to exist under statehood and we will have our hands from to pursue economic goals free from colonial status. Your goals for Puerto Rico are set so high, but please tell me how you will obtain these goals. Tell me how free association would become like Singapore. Tell me how Puerto Rico would not economically benefit from statehood when a colonial system is lifted. I need explanations and not fabricated aspirations. The article talks about the problems that are present within the colonial system in place within the United States. The statement from buying fuel from Venezuela at a cheaper price is against my views. I believe that the rise in gas prices has pushed my environmental views to the front. I believe high gas prices would lead to people investing in fuel efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles, be it in the states or Puerto Rico. The article states that we need, need, need, but doesn't say how how how. Again more explanations and less assaults on a viable option.

The mistake most statehooders make is in fact believing that our situation is comparable to that of the DR. Puerto Rico would achieve sovereignty at a level of indistrialization and development with many of these counties never had. That is why it is illogical to compare our sovereignity at this point in time with the DR. Our sitation would be in fact more similar to that of Singapore. Stating otherwise is simply perpetuating the histerical fears that the PNP uses to maintain the people ignorant. Current commonwealth and statehood are two sides of the same token. Neither of them give us the political powers we need to integrate to the global economic system. Statehood would simply add a few more federal funds...the economy would remain a dependent appendix of the US. Therefore, I sugges YOU explain what type of eocnomic model you are proposing during statehood? Ive already told you how how how. The Megapuerto is crucial to our development and we cant operate it properly without being free of the US maritime laws. Developing Puerto Rico as a commercial hub is the key to our self-sufficiency. Integrating into international organizations and trade agreements with other countries so they reveive insentives to use us as their caribbean hub (between the EU and Mercosur). This is a viable option. What is not viable is continued living on funds and welfare like statehood proposes. As far as the environment, I would let the US worry about that, they are the biggest polluters, have them sacrifice cars. Puerto Rico should be able to obtain cheaper oil from Venezuela, as it would if it were a member of the Caribbean Community (Venezuela provides OEC countries with programs for cheap oil). Just this amount saved on oil would be sufficient to offset a big portion the US funds which doom is to dependency.

SINGAPORE HAS ALL TYPES OF RAW MATERIAL FLOW. The greatest raw material flow in Puerto Rico is drugs. Unfortunately thats not going to cut it. How will this employ our people. Puerto Rico needs massive foreign investment, WHERE WILL IT COME FROM. As i said explain how you will maintain schools, explain how you will give the best health care to our seniors, explain how you will battle the drug problem, explain how you will employ the Puerto Rican workforce? Going around the globe and stating success stories is not stating how. I could say "wow look at my neigbor's BMW", doesn't mean I am going to get a BMW. Please push your party to stop vetoing status bills so we could see what the people think. This vote will not even be close, I gaurantee it. ... For Puerto Rico to be successful as a state it must continue to improvise its' economy. A great example would be going into research and development, especially with drug companies. Puerto Rico has an advantage over other states in gearing itself towards this type of economy. You could get Puerto Rico on the same page economically and institutionally than a state like Florida or New York. That is another reason why Puerto Rico's success as a state is gauranteed. 51 is inevitable.

Do you think Singapore always had raw material flow? No, they developed an economic model. Do you think that PR is not capable of developing an economic model? You state PR needs massive foreign investment. It will come when countries are given a REASON and an INCENTIVE to invest! What possible incentive can we give them when we cant control our trade or international agreements?! As a result of Hernadez Colon’s incentives in 1991, Japan was willing and able to enter into a trade agreement with PR that would have benefitted the island. Unfortunately Washington shut it down and did not allow the Japan-PR trade agreement.
I ask you the same things you ask me. Under statehood, how will we maintain schools? Health care? Employ the workforce? Please detail an economic model under statehood to support your contentions that it will benefit us instead of limiting us to the continued dependence on welfare for subsistence as our economic model. I have given you mine. 1) Eliminate US maritme laws so that we can conduct out trade without being forced to use US ships which are the costliest in the world. This is NECESSARY for a successful use of the Megapuerto and it will save us millions of dollars annually. 2) With sovereign economic powers we can integrate to CARICOM whose countries have preferred status with Venezuela in regards to oil supply. We would buy our oil for consumption at a MUCH cheaper price than under the restrictions US laws impose on us. Again, here we would save millions annually. 3) Provide incentives for foreign investment which we currently may not. For example, the Netherlands and Denmark were extremely interested in the Megapuerto project. However, we cant offer them anything bc we don’t have economic powers. 4) Continue the development of an economic model based on the Megapuerto in Ponce as an international hub linking South America (MercoSur) and the EU and South American and North America.
This is a real plan and a serious economic model that puts PR in its rightful place in the region and internationally. Why would I want PR to be “on the same page” as FL or NY? These aern’t nations and they don’t share our geographical, cultural, or economic realities. If you are satisfied with reducing PR to a mere appendix economy of the US that is your right. Some of us want more and want a greater and dignified role for PR, in its own right, in the world. As far a statehood goes, all of you claim that it will win...but how come it has never passed the 46% mark? Remember PPD + PIP (the mayority, around 53%) REFUSE to integrate further or assimilate. That 53% wants, to some extent or another, a greater role for PR in the international arena. That is why we DON’T support statehood. Besides knowing that in order to truly develop our economy we need certain sovereign powers to do it we reject statehood because what it represents: the denial and death of our nation. We PPDs appreciate the US, we want to have close relationships, we respect that country, yet we are clear that our nation is PR. We do not want further integration, but association in order to develop our economy and have a rightful please as the nation we are in the international realm. That is why for us statehood is simply not an option.

place not please.

Hernandez Colon is another example of someone in Puerto Rico who sees the finish line of his selfish aspirations but has no explanation of getting there. You guys have this dream but haven't said how you will obtain this successful. Don't bother explaining to me because it is all fabricated nonsense that you keep replying back. Ok even if Puerto Rico could became like Singapore (which it wouldn't) how would you deal with health care, education, law enforcement, and the biggest problem of all drugs. You could blame the U.S. all you want (I believe you would) but Puerto Rico is in the middle of where drugs are produced and their market place in the U.S. 53% did not choose to further assimilate into the U.S. 3% did. 50% clearly chose not to intergrate into the global arena by rejecting independence. That means 50% chose to maintain a government structure that is similar to other states because PR is set up as a U.S. territory. With statehood the territorial problems are solved (what don't you understand about this, people care about there way of life). PPD's base will cease to exist due to the termination of the status quo. I'm sure less than half of them will go for this bogus FAS.

1) I just gave you an explanationas detailed as possible in this blog. I will be happy to share with you studies and literature from economists in regares to PR's economy in the globar arena. The problem with statehooders is the RATHER keep arguing it is not possible even when presented with facts. You DONT WANT PR to ever be able to be eocnomically self reliable because that would mean that people would reject statehood. As you stated "dont bother explaining to me". You simply dont want to hear it. An economist can sit down with you and explain the benefits and setbacks of FAS in an objective manner and YOU would argue with HIM that is is fabricated and nonsense. The truth is you dont WANT to hear it.

2) "How would you deal with health care, education, law enforcement, and the biggest problem of all drugs". Statehooders seem to believe that upon FAS the US will dismantle all of our government, bulldoze our administrative agencies, dissolve the Puerto Rican police and only leave trees, people and animals. Our government will go on...and we will deal with health, and education, and drugs just like we do today. The Departamento de Educación will still be in Avenida Chardón, the NIE will continue to investigate crime, the Supreme Court will continue to interpret laws, legislature will continue to create laws, the police will continue to fight crime etc. And guess what? Even the US DEA can be active in drug enforcement issues under FAS!! (Read about the FAS compacts in the Pacific). The difference is the funds for our departments will come from our economy and not from transfers of of $ from the US. Please, argue some login in arguments asking me to explain how these things will work under FAS is as asbusrd as me asking you to explain how they will work under statehood.

3)"50% clearly chose not to intergrate into the global arena by rejecting independence. That means 50% chose to maintain a government structure that is similar to other states because PR is set up as a U.S. territory:
FALSE! Read the PPD platform. You will see we DONT want to be treated like a state and that WE DO want to integrate into the global arena. To that 3% of independence you have to add the 48% of PPD's who WANT to integrate PR into the global economy (albeit with some form of association with the US).

4)"With statehood the territorial problems are solved (what don't you understand about this, people care about there way of life)"
I know territorial problems are solved with statehood. We would be outside the territorial clause of the constitution...Same thing would happen under FAS. What is the point of this argument? We PPD's will not support statehood. Such status cant accomodate our national reality and does not give us the necessary tools to insert ourselves into the international economy. Like it or not.

If it smells like a state, looks like a state, and sounds like a state, it is a state with territorial restrictions. Sure there isn't territorial problems under the FAS but there isn't any funding. Puerto Rico is funded then it produces. When you rely on funds to produce back to where your funds came from, there is nothing wrong with that. Under FAS Puerto Rico will not be funded therefore so even though the U.S. won't knock down our structures, they wont fund them. There is nothing wrong with being funded, every state is funded. When I say I don't want to hear it it is because you are irrational to the point where you have secluded yourself from the facts to pursue sovereignty at all costs, even the cost of peoples well being. To say the statehood option wont receive 3.5 percentage points of the 50% is absurd because I have personally seen four people that voted for that option in 1998, favor the statehood option. Trust me I will work a lot harder uncovering lies to make sure does numbers go up. Dont bother explaining a irrational approach that is out of touch with the reality of Puerto Rico. Just so that there isn't any misunderstandings.

E,

Precisely my point. Puerto Rico does not smell like a state, look like a state, or sound like a state. That is what all my American friends say when the come to visit from the US. That is why it is a nation with territorial restrictions. Sure there isn’t any territorial problem under statehood but this would not provide for a truly developed and self-reliant economy nor deal with our nationality issues. Again you are misinformed abour FAS. Read the compacts of FAS between the US and the pacific islands. These islands receive funding from the US. The only difference is they receive “block grant” assistance instead of “agency funding”. That is for example, the US determined that Micronesia would need X amount of $ in total funding and they provide that funding to the island in a block grant. Micronesia then distributes the funding to its agencies in the manner it sees fit. In Puerto Rico we are obligated to use X funds towards X department, and Y funds for Y agency. The idea of FAS, as stated by the US, is to ASSIST these economies UNTIL they obtain a level of self-sufficiency where they no longer NEED US funding! Until that happens the US will keep funding them. And why does this happen? Because we live within the context of a global community and international relations. As RECOGNIZED by the US, they have a RESPONSIBILITY with these pacific islands due to their decades of colonial involvement, just as would be with Puerto Rico. Just like the Denmark has a responsibility with Greenland, the UK with its commonwealth members etc. Of course besides this international reality the US has determined it is in THEIR interest to keep FAS with these islands because the islands provide certain benefits for the US ranging from DEA drug issue, to telecomunications, to airspace etc. Read the Compacts. How can I be irrational when I am simply basing my arguments on Compacts of FAS that ARE LAW TODAY?! Just because you have no way of arguing against operational law you resort to saying it is irrational. FAS is IN PLAY TODAY in the pacific. And the Compacts are THE LAW of the US and the Islands. If you don’t care to inform yourself about FAS that is your problem.

Finally, I never said statehood could not receive 3.5% points more. However, this would just reach the movement to 50%. Do you honestly think the US would approve statehood when the other 50% s opposed to it? Even further, lets imagine statehood reaches a miraculous 60%. Do you realy believe that the US would allow admission to the union to an island where 40% DON’T WANT to join? Statehood in Hawaii had a margin of 95%. Maybe when you get to at least 75% will a statehood option be even viable. There is no law that requires an X% for admission but no law requires admission after X% either. The idea that Congress would admit a state with 50% of the vote is kind of far fetched. The fact that after 107 years of US control the statehood movement is still below 50% says something about our reality and our refusal to renounce our nation and integrate to another.

N, I am not trying to argue operational law, but it doesn't matter what the UN states or what the Pacific islands receive. What happens to Puerto Rico will be through Congress not the UN, and what package Puerto Rico receives will be different from the Pacific islands. I do not agree with funding the Pacific islands because it is a waste of my tax dollars. It is unfair for these islands to receive anything. If they don't want to be American they don't deserve American defense or other funds. If Puerto Rico was such a state I wouldn't mind my tax dollars going to PR because I am Puerto Rican, but it would not be fair. You know that the treaty must be worked with the United States, so how is it in the best interest of the U.S. to give Puerto Rico a generous parting gift. Be realistic with what a treaty of free association would contain. The PPD knows this that is why they are reluctant to support free association. Do you think that these are a bunch of dumb leaders that have never heard of free association? The fact is Puerto Ricans enjoy the ability to be Puerto Rican, but they also are happy to be American as well. They know they can have both with statehood and so does the PPD. They will not jeopardize their way of life with free association. I personally believe that if the PPD swithces to support free association then they would be somewhere along the same lines of the PIP. If your FAS ideas are so good WHY HASN'T THE PPD SWITCH THERE STAND TO THAT NONE COLONIAL OPTION?

E, valid question. The answer is because the leaders are afraid of change. I dont know how familiar you are with Puerto Rican politics but in the last 4 years numerous PPD leaders have openly stated they would support FAS. Why? Because they have found that the average party follower is not only open to the idea but would actually support it. The PPD leaders have noticed there are two kinds of populares out there: 1) those who are informed about FAS and are simply waiting for the PPD to adopt this formula as a real "Estado Libre Asociado" formula 2) those who are uninformed about FAS but when explained about it they are open to the idea. What you dont seem to understand is that PPD's belong to this party (as opposed to the statehood party) for a reason: PPD's are autonomists. That is, the ideal of the populares is to have a relationship with the US but at the same time maintain our nationality and international presence. Most PPD's want P.R. to have a greater involvement in international affairs, specially in commerce. That is a goal we strive for. You seem to think that PPD's think in the same way statehooders do and that we are complacent with the current ELA. Undersand that the 48% of populares in P.R. are autonomists that do NOT believe in statehood because statehood goes against being an autonimists. With statehood P.R. would REDUCE its role in the world and have less international presence. Autonimists seel MORE international presence for the Island while maintaining certain relationships with the US. PPD's are autonimists and therefore do NOT believe in further integration to the US and do NOT see the US as their nation. Again, statehood is incompatible with the ideals of populares. There is a reason we belong to the PPD and not the PNP.

You seem to think that because YOU would not support your tax dollars for an FAS arrangement it would not happen. You dont support FAS for the pacific but it is a reality today, period. You may not like it but it is a reality. Of course the Compact of FAS would be negotiated with Congress, that is part of FAS. Once both sides are in agreement the Compact become the law of both lands. The FAS compacts of the pacific are LAW in the US and the Islands. Now, you state there should be no funding for FAS? That seems illogical considering that the US sends billions of dollars to sovereign nations every year! Take Israel for example...that country receives more money from the US than Puerto Rico does! That is just a reality. Then how is it logical that the US funds sovereign nations and yet would not fund nations with which it has a compact of association, with which it shares a common defense, a currency, shares telecomunications, air space etc?
FAS is not one sided. The islands provide certain things the US WANTS and NEEDS (namely a foothold in the pacific in which the US can operate DEA enforcement, control airspace etc). The same would apply to P.R. (a foothold in the center of the Caribbean which is in essence the US's third border). In return the US provides certain things that the Islands NEED and WANT (such as FEMA funding in case of disasters, block funding to develop their economy etc). It benefits both sides so your tax money is not at waste.

You seem to argue without a global perspective of the issues. The US does not operate in an international vaccum. Every action it takes and every decision it makes is scrutinized in the context of international relations (as do all other countries). Why does the US fund the FAS of the Pacific? Besides the benefits FAS brings for both sides, the US has an international responsbility with these islands which were territories for over 40 years. The US BENEFITS internationally if these islands succeed. The US does NOT want these former colonies to descend into poverty and chaos because of the international repercussions that would bring to the US. This happened with the UK as well when most of its territories became independent. It was in the UK's national interest that these places prosper, and as a result the commonwealth arrangement was reached between the UK and its former territories. You cant argue these matters in a vaccum. It would be in the national interest of the US that P.R. be be succesfull, as is the case with the pacific islands. That is why FAS is in place in the pacific and it is an option for P.R. We need to place the US-PR realtionships in a context. They cant be seen in a vaccum.

I don't believe the U.S. has an obligation to any of those Pacific islands. I agree with the fact that if they want to use American defense then THEY are obligated to allow America to use their territory for military bases, air space, etc. Don't compare Israeli aid to Puerto Rican funding. Don't twist that to benefit your argument because it is two extremely different cases. A global persective on issues? I believe if the U.S. was so concerned with that it wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Rightfully so, the Europeans and the UN's views on the U.S. is irrelevant with me. I thought it was a George W. Bush issue, but those countries wouldn't support our country if it where any president in the white house. The critics of the international community are worthless. If you want to make that argument then the U.S. would benefit in the international community if Puerto Rico becomes a state as well. Which brings me to my original point, Why would the U.S. continue extensive funding to a island with a greater population than more than half of its' states? The answer is that they won't do this. Realize that FAS is extremely different than enhanced commonwealth and you shouldn't argue anything else. Realize that Puerto Ricans will choose to stay with the United States instead of independent options. How could you expect them to alter their way of life for nationalistic sovereignty?

Again the fact that you dont believe the US has an obligation to these islands in the Pacific is irrelevant. The fact is the Compacts, approved by Congress and which today are the LAW of the US, recognize US obligations with their former territories. And as a result they fund them with the goal of achieving self sufficiency and economic prosperity. You might not be in agreement to it but it does not change the fact that it is a reality.

You dont seem to understand that it is not a one sided deal. You claim that beacuse the pacific islands wants US defense then they are obligated to allow the US to use their territories for military purposes. The US WANTS the use of this area's airspace, not only for protection of the islands, but as a strategic national defense matter. That is why when the compacts were renegotiatiated in 2003 US military personel urged Congress to continue the present relationsip of FAS because of US interests in national defense and military issues. In fact they stated that by controlling the airspace of this area (with exclusivity) they had a footholed in the pacific which would be irreplaceable and which helps to protect the US. It is mutual benefit. The US WANTS it.

Im not twisting any facts with Israel. You seem to claim that FAS's dont receive funding when the truth is even sovereign nations receive it...it is merely an example of the illogical construction of your arguments.

"Rightfully so, the Europeans and the UN's views on the U.S. is irrelevant with me." That is a US foreign policy issue from which I can see you are one of the neo-con right wingers who have unfortunately created the current mess in international affairs and have spit on the US's rightfully earned reputation across the globe. Even in its ups and downs most of us admired the US's role in the world, from participation in wars of liberation like WWI and WWII, to great international successes like the Marshall Plan, to its commitment to international institutions like President Wilson envisioned, to diplomatic relations, to the creation of NATO etc. In their unknowing ignorance Bush and his right wingers have tarnished that respect the US once had setting dangerous precedent for years to come. Like it or not we all live in a world community and the US is part of it.

"The U.S. would benefit in the international community if Puerto Rico becomes a state as well". Im sure it would. The question there is would the US venture into this novel kind of statehood and admit a spanish speaking nation as a state.

FAS IS enhanced commonwealth but outside the territorial clause. The only way to achieve that is through FAS. You cant have a non-colonial enhanced commonwealth if you remain subject to such territorial clase. Puerto Ricans will choose to stay with the United States based on FAS. Our way of life would not be altered as you claim. What will change is we will have a more prominent role in our region as we rightfuly deserve just as Micronesia has it today in the pacific region. You just dont seem to get that most Puerto Ricans DO NOT see the US as their country...
strong supporters of the US? yes pro-american? most defenetely
partners? yes
our nation? No. That is the Puerto Rican reality and we must find a status solution that deals with this reality to benefit both sides. FAS is just that solution.

My comment is short. It appears to me that Puerto Ricans have lost control of PR. For example, I am told the Cubans control the newspapers in PR. Also, there are too many non-Puerto Ricans in PR. I have never been interested in the status PR. However, based on my current visit to PR I have come to believe that Commonwealth is the best status for the present time. Statehood would prevent PRs from ever gaining control of the island again. There is no doubt that PR as a Commonwealth in nothing more than a colony of the U.S. Independence, appears to be out of the question based on past voting history. I fear that if PR becomes a state then we will be a people without a homeland.

N, last time I checked enhanced commonwealth status would have provided Puerto Rican the same proportioned funding as the other states with the priviledges of other countries. IF FAS IS ENHANCED COMMONWEALTH, WHY DOESN'T THE PPD SUPPORT IT. I am a conservative DEMOCRAT. That means I am against abortion for my family but I shouldn't put what I believe into legislation, for example. I am for taxing the well off and I don't believe in tax breaks for the wealthy. Bush has tarnished our reputation and I agree with it, but I believe the U.S. has an obligation to be on the offensive against terrorist strong holds. I also believe the U.S. should be involved in the Sudan. I vote on compassion, not on big business. It is pure insanity to state that Congress would pass a treaty full of grants to Puerto Rico.

Ernest, I wouldn't worry about Puerto Ricans losing control of Puerto Rico. There are Spaniards, Italians, French, Irish, Africans that have all migrated to Puerto Rico over the years on they are now part of Puerto Rican culture. There is a definate problem with immigration and the United States has to have major immigration reform. There are about 300,000 Dominicans and God knows how many are illegal. Immigration must be reformed but immigration is not a major problem in Puerto Rico. If there are Cubans in the media, I would only worry about the gatekeepers, which are the people who control the newworthiness of stories and determine what the public will see. However, it is impossible that Puerto Ricans would lose control of PR if Puerto Rico becomes a state, so don't even worry about that. That is propoganda from anti-statehood advocates.

Why doesnt the PPD support FAS? Read the PPD platform, it is FAS in all but then name. The reason they are timid to support it is because of the statehood fear mongerers who will come out with their ignorant and histerical cries of "independence",
"communism", "hunger", "starvation", dictarship" ..you know the usual scare tactics which the feed to a population that unfortunataly is not as educated and will believe such abusrdness. Adoption of FAS as the official party formula takes education and information to counterbalance the histerical cries of the statehood movement. But in the end PPDs will accept it because what you dont seem to understand is that PPDs are in the party for a reason, autonomism. I have been in many party gatherings and have spoken with numerous ordinary PPD members from across the island and the result is usually the same. While they dont realy understand the term "FAS" when explained in detail they would support it. In fact, many who are more informed go up to the leaders and ask why they dont adopt it as the official party platform. It is this acceptance by the ordinary PPDs that have mover important PPDs mayors to openly sat they would support FAS as the party platform. The base of the party is in this case way ahead of the official party line and it is why many party leaders are now stating openly they would support FAS. Remember, PPDs are in that party for a reason and one of them is to stop statehood. That is why in a PPD rally you will only see Puerto Rican flags waved. It is a party reaffirming a nationality and rejecting further integration/assimilation. These people will never fit in a statehood movement where (like in the PNP rallies) all you see for the most part are US flags waved. PPDs and PNPs do NOT think alike. Be carefull in lumping PPDs in a statehood vote, it will not happen.

I am glad you agree that Bush has tarnished the well deserved reputation that the US has always had internationally. I agree with you, the US might have an obligation to be on the offensive against terrorist strong holds. However, the sham war in Iraq is not being "in the offensive" because it was not even a terrorist stronghold to begin with! (it is now!). You want to go on the offensive in terrorist strongholds? Go against Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately since that goes against Mr. Bush's economic interests it will never happen.
You can be strong on offensive with your allies like in Afghanistan. To dismantle long established alliances and spit on the international community in order to enter into a war without basis is not only counter productive but foolish and selfish. The US, which is a great country with honorable people, does not deserve that. Bush has wrecked the US reputation in the world and most importantly has set dangerous precedent in world affairs to the detriment of the entire globe. An unstable international order is never desirable and to think otherwise is foolish.

"It is pure insanity to state that Congress would pass a treaty full of grants to Puerto Rico" - You still dont understand FAS. Read the compacts of the Pacific. They are funded in an effort for them to achieve self sufficency so they wont need the grants! That is not insanity, it benefits PR and the US!

Ernest, I are right in your concerns of Puerto Ricans losing control of Puerto Rico. It is not propaganda, it is the truth that statehooders want to hide.
Immigration is a big problem in PR. We have the highest population density in the hemshpere and the last thing we need are massive migrations because we simply cant take them in. There is no reason why Puerto Ricans should not be able to have a greater say over immigration into our island. It is ilogical that we are under US immigration laws without any special consideration as if our realities were similar to that of the US. The US has ample space, demand for workers and ability to accomodate migrants. PR does not.

"It is impossible that Puerto Ricans would lose control of PR if Puerto Rico becomes a state"...I will just say one word: Hawaii. Here is the structure of power and control in Hawaii: 1) white americans 2) japanese 3) philipinos 4) chinese 5) other asian minorities 6) hawaiians. Hawaiians have no control over their islands whatsoever. Of course statehooders will try ot hide this saying "the situation is not comparable" and here is wher their argument fails. There are two options in a PR statehood 1) either it follows US history patterns and receives MASSIVE migration from the US proper to a point where it is more assimilated to the mainstream USA and only THEN will it become a state or (i.e. Hawaii, California, Alaska, Louisiana etc etc) 2) we have a novel situation in US history where the US would accept a state which is a nation that has not been assimilated into the US mainstream, which operates in a different language, and one in which the native inhabitants control the state. This would be a novel concept and would resemple a Quebeq-like statehood. That is the reality statehooders dont like to deal with. History is NOT on their side.

N, please stop with the propoganda. That is all you seem to state in these blogs. You state that Puerto Rico would be funded under FAS. Yet you attack the statehood movement by stating that they want to depend on funds. The funding that Puerto Rico would require would never be granted under FAS. You are a liar. You state that uneducated, uninformed people don't understand FAS, but isn't the PPD leadership educated. The reason why there are scared of the statehood advocates labeling FAS with independence, is because they know it is a slightly altered version of independence. Just admit it. Judging from your arguments against the Bush administration you think compassionately political, as do I. However, once again a radical sense of nationalism is leading to propoganda that lacks compassion on your fellow islanders. YOU LUMP the populares with you, but they are not. As I said, they chose neither statehood or independence. FAS is a slightly altered form of independence, so to say that all of the populares will vote for it is insane. My uncle who is an independista is made fun of by my family. Independence IS NOT what the people of Puerto Rico want. HAWAII, is a lot different then Puerto Rico. Hawaii faced massive migration from Asian groups and Anglos. The largest group in Puerto Rico is the Dominicans, which most of them migrate to New York. Another disgusting remark from an educated propoganda spitter.

There is no propaganda in my argument. Open a history a book and read US history. You will see these facts. The only propaganda is the scare tactics used by statehooders to equate FAS with independence (which you seem to do as well). I attack the
statehood movement by stating that they want to depend on funds because they see that as the only way of economically surviving. The funding for FAS is intended so that P.R. becomes self sufficient with a developed economy that WONT NEED those funds. This is not a lie. Again just facts, read the compacts of FAS in the pacific. They specifiucally mention the US commitment to provide funding for these islands until they reach a level of self suffiency where that funding is no longer needed. Fact. Read the compacts. Like many you are ill informed about FAS. And like many you are complacent with dependency on funds forever instead of a sustainable and developed economy.

I "LUMP" the populares ine one category: AUTONOMISTS. That is the reason of being of such party. You cant be an autonomist (which by nature rejects integration/assimilation) and accept statehood.

This is the typical statehood propaganda used as a scare tactic: "FAS is a slightly altered form of independence".
You can look up my arguments in history books and international compacts of FAS. Yours are irrational and histerical scare tactics typically used by the statehooders.

Finally if you read my comment I adressed the issue of migration and never mentioned P.R. at the moment suffered from grave migration problems. I stated there were 2 scnarios: 1) either the normal US history pattern where the territory receives MASSIVE migration from the US proper to a point where it is more assimilated to the mainstream USA and only THEN will it become a state (i.e. Hawaii, California, Alaska, Louisiana etc etc) OR 2) we have a novel situation in US history where the US would accept a state which is a nation that has not been assimilated into the US mainstream, which operates in a different language, and one in which the native inhabitants control the state. This would be a novel concept and would resemple a Quebeq-like statehood.
The first option is unacceptable for Puerto Ricans and the second is unacceptable for the US. History. Facts. Face them and dont try to hide them.

I would like to add something to the Puerto Rico Status debate.
The question should be weather people in Puerto Rico want to be Puerto Ricans or Americans.
What the "Populares"and "Independentistas'donot seem to understand is that
the majority of the people of Puerto Rico do
not want to to give up being citizens of the United States.
That is why the political parties in Puerto Rico that want a separate nation never want to see
a vote that involves independence
and statehood.
All the political manuvering that goes on in Puerto Rico over the status issue revolves around this
fact.
The populares and independentistas
never want to see that kind of of a vote which they know they will lose with at least 80% of the vote.
The facts are that Puerto Ricans do not
want to stop being citizens of the
United States.
The facts are that the only non territorial status that guarantees
permanent US citizenship is statehood.
There is a very deceitful game being played in Puerto Rico by the political parties that want to separate the island from the Unites States by default by trying
to convince the people in the United States and the Congress that
statehood should never be an option.
That way the people of Puerto Rico
feeling that they have being rejected will vote for independence from The United States.
I would also like to add that the only reason the Commonwealth won
the majority of the votes in the previous plebicites is because
it promised permanent association with american citizenship.
I think is time that the political
parties in Puerto Rico stop playing
their little games and bring and end to 500 years of being in a political limbo as far as status is concerned.
Either we are going to be Puerto Ricans or Americans.It is obvious that we cannot be both.
Juan R Jimenez 9/6/05

Viva PR Libre!

Down with FAS.

Statehood is only achievable if people learn English.

Don’t want to learn English? No problem, we’ll make you your own country and you can fend for yourself.

PR Libre is the answer!

J

Juan, you are correct! I could have put more crystal clear myself. N, seems to think that the statehood movement has sold Puerto Rico, but I can't wait until populares see that it was their leaders that have done this. When presented with facts populares that I have talked were outraged with being sold out to remain in the commonwealth status. That is why the POPULARES in my family are now for statehood. Commonwealth status was transition and now those who advocated for it (populares) have the CHOICE of either statehood, complete independence, or independence with a bootleg treaty. As you said Juan statehood offers the best protection of citizenship, but it aslo offers the best protection of the AVERAGE Puerto Ricans way of life. NOT THE FEW who would benefit from the other forms of independence. Juan, you stated that we have to be Puerto Rican or American, but we can be both. That is the benefit of living in a civilized, cosmopolitan society in which different is Ok. I am the best example of that. I live in New York and all of my non-Puerto Rican friends know that I am Puerto Rican. They also know that I am American when I discuss my concerns for our troops around the globe or the unfortunate people that are suffering as we speak in New Orleans. YES Puerto Rico would be a different state. Being different is something that is allowed and would be encouraged. N, will use PROPOGANDA and refer to it as a Quebec like situation. He too would lump a soft summer breeze with a tornado if he could.

J, Puerto Ricans will learn English not because a prerequisite of statehood but because we will strive for academic excellence, which includes knowledge of more than one language. To say that PR would have to learn English is rediculous and pathetic. Diversity is something that is encouraged by the open minded in this country. THE UNITED STATES MUST LEARN SPANISH, and other languages. LANGUAGE will never be an issue. That is an 19th century argument.

Juan, as does E, simply do not understand, or refuse to understand, why it is that 48% of P.Ricans belong to the PPD. You seem to think the reason we belong to the PPD is because of US citizenship. That is not the case. While, granted, citizenship is an important debate and most PPDs do not want to lose US citizenship we do NOT belong to the PPD for that reason. We belong to the PPD as a way of asserting ourselves as a nation and fighting for an autonomous political entity with greater international representation and a close relationship to the US. This is a valid status option present all across the world: Greenland, Netherland Antiless, Cook Islands, Micronesia etc. We REJECT statehood, we do NOT believe in intergration, we do not see the US as our nation. THAT is why we belong to the PPD because we appreciate our relationship with the US but most importantly we affirm our nationality and want it to have a place in international affairs (not just as a mere state of another country). I am trying to let you understand that PPDs think very differently from statehooders. Do not think that we belong to the PPD because of US citizenship, if that were the case then why wouldnt we belong to the statehood party. While citizenship is an important issue we ar ein the PPD for the other reasons aforementioned and because we do NOT believe in statehood.

E, refering to a Quebeq like sitation is NOT propaganda. It is a reality that you dont like to face. I advise you to study the Congressional debates on P.R. status and youwill find Quebeq mentioned on repeated occasions. The fact is admitting a hispanic state (whose institutions work in Spanish) into an anglo-north american nation is the equivalent of french quebec inside a greated anglo-canadian country. That is a fact.

I do agree with Juan in one thing: it is either americas or puerto ricans, but this has nothing to do with citizenship. Nationality is not related to citizenship. Why do statehooders have such a hard time understanding this concept? In the minds of PPDs and PIPs it is clear, we are Puerto Ricans period. We are not americans. We have our national flag, our national anthem etc. The passport issue is something different. We are no more Americans than Arubans are European even though they hold Dutch passports. The difference between us and statehooders is statehooders WANT to be considered Americans and they see the US as their nation. The P.R. flag for them is nothing more than a "state" symbol and our anthem is nothing more than a "state song". That is the big ideological divide in P.R.: those who consider the US their nation and those who reafirm P.R. as their nation. I ask you J, what is your nation? what is your country's flag? what is your national anthem? Im sure you our responses will differ and THAT is presicley why poluares belong to the PPD and why we are not statehooders.

AUTONOMY=INDEPENDENCE

Want autonomy? Have independence.

those are the simple facts.

Imagine, PR being compared to Aruba and the other third world islands.

Have independence, fend for yourselves in the world economy.

J

Here are the facts for anyone born in PR:

Nation: United States of America
National Flag: Old Glory
National Anthem: Star Spangled Banner

You may not like it, but that is who you are by birth.

Obviously, you can spin and try to give yourself fancy names like blacks and Indians do, but it doesn’t change the fact. You bleed red, white, and blue. Others have already bled red, white, and blue and given their lives for the principles for which Old Glory stands.

Stop spinning the AUTONOMY fallacy. AUTONOMY is INDEPENDENCE.

J

There is no spin...

YOUR nation: USA
YOUR national flag: old glory
YOUR national anthem: the stars spangled banner

MY nation: Puerto Rico
MY national flag: la monoestrellada
MY national anthem: La Borinqueña

When I see the US flag I respect it as I would the flag of any other nation, but it is not my own. When I see a US team winning in an event and hear the starts spangeled banner I do not regard it as my team any more than I regard Spain or Australia as my team. We dont identify with US symbols or US patriotism because it is simply not our nation. Partners? yes ; allies? yes ; pro-american? yes ; our nation? certainly not. Not even statehooders dare sell statehood based on US patriotism because they know it doesnt fly in P.R. That is the best example of our national reality. Like it or not.

There is no spin. Autonomy is one of the three options, period. Greenland is not independent and is not integrated into Denmark. It is an autonomous body, internationaly recognized and non-colonial under the Homeland Rule Act. Autonomy is a reality worldwide. The fact that YOU dont like it does not make it less of an option.

N, thank you.

Here are the facts. The US is not your partner. I know that because you carry a US passport.

Need any more proof?

J

Ok J, one more time, and repeat after me:
"citizenship is not equivalent to nationality"
"citizenship is not equivalent to nationality"

If tomorrow the chinese where to invade P.R. and grant us Chinese passports it would not mean we would become Chinese. We would be Puerto Ricans with Chinese passports.

But here are words from your very own president George W. Bush in regards to Puerto Rico (June 14, 2001 from Stockholm, Sweeden):
"They are our FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS".

N, it wouldn't surprise me if George W. Bush stated that we have to get those hurricanes where they live before they hit us home.

Like I said before, I'm sold.

VIVA PR LIBRE!!!

N, in all of this arguing I am sure it has occurred to you that statehood has a chance of winning. If statehood won, why wouldn't you propose a division of the island? Lets say if statehood won 75% 25% the division would be 75% of the island a state, 25% of the island FAS. It seems the only fair thing to do. It sounds silly dividing Puerto Rico, but doesn't it sound foolish having 25% who oppose statehood live in a state. I believe people should think of a non territorial compromise in which the people of one portion of the island would be allowed to live on the portion which is administered as a state or vice versa. It sounds silly but it would be a great compromise because neither side would be happy, however, neither side will be alienated as well. The state side would be allowed to partiipate in Congress and presidential elections while gaining their full priviledges as a state. The other side would be allowed to function as an independent nation with a similar weak treaty of free association to the U.S. It wouldn't be isolating the different sections because both sides would be allowed to travel freely throughout the island. Just some food for thought for everyone out there. Of course I would have to take credit for the idea guys.

I'l laughing so hard I can't stand it!!

J

E, That was a good one. :) However, under international law a national entity can't be divided in order to solve a colonial status issue. That was precisly one of the problems in East Timor where Indonesia did not want to rspect the territorial integrity of the east timorese national entity. Whatever future holds P.R. it will obviously have to be together. I honestly doubt statehood will ever win 75%. It might win maybe 50% to 55% and that, I hope you agree with me, is insufficient for a grant of statehood. That is why the deadlock we are in will probably not be solved with statehood. Although you claim otherwise statehood has no real massive support in the island as it did in Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona (which were the last states to enter the union). That is why we will keep on fighting over the issue for decades because, although you hope otherwise, PPDs will not likeley switch their autonomist ideals to statehood. They are incompatible.

But now that you mention it lets imagine this hypothetical scenario: the island is split in half (one half state, one half FAS). It is 2016 and the entire island is watching the Olympic Games where the US and PR basketball teams are tied at 72 with 30 seconds remaining, P.R. has the ball.......For which team will the half of the island that is a state be cheering for? Something to think about....

Under your assumption of FAS and your scenario, the Americans will always win.

J

I honestly believe that statehood has potential to do better than 55%. I made the statement as a joke but it concerns me that a significant portion would not want statehood. If their is no room for compromise than I believe whatever receives 51%, Puerto Rico should become. If statehood wins 51% then why should PR be an FAS if 47% voted FAS (as an example), and complete independence 2%(as an example). The fact however that Puerto Ricans are not excited enough about any of the 3 choices. N, FAS advocates don't take into account that people like me want statehood and statehood advocates don't take into account that people like you want a distinct nation. I believe that if statehood wins the majority then a compromise should be made to create a experimental nation-state. Even though I do not agree with strong nationalism and believe it is out dated, I must respect the fact that this matters to a significant amount of Puerto Ricans. However, you must recognize that a significant amount of Puerto Ricans do not want to venture off into the global arena. Even though you do not agree with this you should respect it. THE SOONER Puerto Ricans stop fighting and start compromising each others feelings then the better Puerto Rico will be.

Let's have a biding vote. Two options: Statehood or Indepedence. If Independence wins, the new soverign government of PR can establish diplomatic relations with the USA and a ask for FAS.

I bet you the PPD won't go for that because they are afraid that the majority of the people will vote for statehood.

that's what they are afraid of.

I'm not afraid. If independence wins, I'm fine with it.

Support Self Determination!!!

As an American I hope that it does not seem too out of place for me, who some would perhaps consider an "outsider", to insert myself into a discussion of the Puerto Rican status issue. Then again, given that the status issue inherently impacts the United States I suppose it is not completely out of line for me as a U.S. citizen to express at least some interest. (Indeed, sometimes we Americans are criticized because our apathy concerning Puerto Rico is unfortunately only equaled by our ignorance). First of all let me say that I do not enter this blog claiming to be an expert or overly familiar with the status issue. Perhaps that will only make a discussion with those of you who are more knowledgeable about the subject all the more valuable. Having said that, please allow me to respectfully pose one question to any blogger participating in this discussion who would like to respond. It is apparent from any discussion of the Puerto Rico status issue that preserving the Puertorican identity in areas such as the Spanish language, international sports, international beauty competitions, the flag, etc. is of utmost importance to many on the island--and understandably so. Puertoricans are proud of who they are and ought to be. If that is the case, then why is the option of independence and separate citizenship so solidly rejected by most of the island population? Are not sovereignty and one's own citizenship the most clear cut ways to demonstrate and preserve this national pride? As has been mentioned, most Puertoricans want a friendly relationship with the United States. Why not accomplish this as a separate nation via defense treaties (ex: join NATO) and free trade agreements (indeed, free trade is the economic agenda of the U.S. for the western hemisphere)? Furthermore, if Puerto Rico needs financial assistance from the U.S., then why not simply request foreign aid as a separate country? I realize that these points are not original with me (indeed, you have most likely heard them before) but nonetheless I would like to hear your individual responses to them. . .

S, thank you.

I appreciate your participation as a fellow American.

Your points go right to what most people educated on the matter consider to be key.

Let the Americans who live in PR decide the future political structure of the Island.

Self Determination is the answer.

If independence wins, then we can the legal framwork to work with the new island's government.

Thank you for participating and please keep your comments and ideas coming.

J

S, the reason why the people reject independence is very simple, they do not want it. The question of nationality is a 19th Century argument being that radical nationalism has been consistently used by a few to influence the masses. No more is that evident in the Balkans with Croats, Serbs and Muslims (nearly indistinguishable) fighting amongst one another. In Puerto Rico this is also evident in its use to battle the statehood movement. Nationality is used in Puerto Rico to attempt to make statehood rejected by the American people and Congress. This way if Congress denies statehood, Puerto Ricans would feel alienated and vote for independence. It is our job as U.S. citizens in the mainland to insure the American people are educated on PR so when the time comes for the PR petition for statehood, we can make sure those alienation attempts have failed.

Second, as a U.S. citizen you shouldn't want your tax dollars going to another foreign country. For Puerto Rico to maintain its' level of economic prosperity that would take a massive amount of funding that would never be approved by Congress. You are correct it is the average American's ignorance on certain issues that is a major problem with the Puerto Rican issue. The media in part is to blame for this because I have hardly ever seen Puerto Rico on the news. However, I have seen Micheal Jackson in his pajamas several times. The medias lack of proper coverage has led (in my opinion) to the problem that most of the American public has no clue as to how incompitent George W. Bush is. This is evident because just now (after more than 4 years) are they giving him a hard time for his mishandling of Katrina. Let me give you facts about Puerto Rico. Currently there are men and woman from Puerto Rico serving in the armed forces for a President they cannot vote for. Puerto Rico's contribution of manpower per capita to the U.S. forces is only behind 5 states. Your tax dollars support a stagnant economy held down by territorial restrictions. If Puerto Rico was a state IT WOULD contribute to the U.S. economy. Puerto Rico has already or prepared to take on people from the Katrina disaster. In Puerto Rico the legislature is dominated by a statehood party. The independence party is insignificant. ... If there was a vote on status without commonwealth in Puerto Rico statehood would win. However, there would be a proportion of the population that would reject statehood. That is why I believe that Congress should allow Puerto Rico to be admitted as a special state that would be allowed certain traditional priviledges that are not unfair to other states. I do not agree with such a special state personally but I would like to take into account every Puerto Rican voter not just the majority that wins. A compromise must be made that is fair to the majority and minority of voters and that is also fair to the other states.

E, please do not infer from my question regarding independence that I am rejecting out of hand the concept of statehood for Puerto Rico. I hope you will allow me to explain myself somewhat. I do not mean any disrespect to those who disagree with me, but I must comment that as an American I find it somewhat frustrating the manner in which some Puerto Ricans seem to argue that they are too different from us in culture, language, and national identity to become a state of our union and yet stop short of requesting the independence that would seem to be the logical alternative. As I said, I respect their desire to be their own entity albeit with a close friendship with the United States. However, if that is what those Puerto Ricans want then why don’t they first propose a way to do that as two allied sovereign nations before resorting to the less traditional options of free association or commonwealth? The United States and Puerto Rico would have a mutual interest in such close cooperation as independent nations for the same reasons that have been given in this forum to argue for cooperation under association. I am aware that free association is respected under United States and international law, but let us bear in mind that in the international political arena free association is the exception and not the rule when it comes to status. Most places in the world are either states or provinces of a larger nation or they are independent nations in and of themselves. Correct me if I am wrong, but even concerning the United States’ political relations only small islands such as the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall islands have compacts of free association with the U.S. The larger island chains that would be more comparable to Puerto Rico such as the Hawaiian and Philippine islands became a state and independent nation, respectively. Would it not be better to fully explore the options of independence (for the sake of those Puerto Ricans who emphasize their national and cultural autonomy) and statehood (for the sake of those Puerto Ricans who emphasize an intimate political relation to the United States) before going to the non-traditional option of free association? If and when the U.S. and Puerto Rican governments have exhaustively researched the viability of statehood and independence and found both to be utterly unacceptable and unviable then perhaps we indeed will have to resign ourselves to less usual alternatives. However, as we all know, neither the U.S. nor Puerto Rican government seems to be getting the ball going anywhere. . .

George W. Bush is the best friend statehood could've ever asked for. (please no D or R comments - I'm talking about PR's political status)

In the last 50 years, there has never been a President more versed on this issue. The closest one is Bush 41.

The have a very special and long standing relationship to PR and understand it well.

Too bad that the Washington special interests and lobbying business are in the way of statehood.

The PR status issue has made many people in Washington millionaries. People that had nothing when they started, have built lobbying empires on the backs of the people of PR.

All political leaders (irrespective of party)in PR whould be ashamed of themselves. They sold the people of PR the same way Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton sold blacks in the US.

J

S, I share your frustration with the situation in Puerto Rico. I would like for you to understand that if Puerto Rico has a vote on non-colonial options the majority will choose statehood. Whether a super majority or a weak majority I have no idea, but a majority nonetheless. The problem is partisan bickering has led to such hostility that the thought of compromise is in the minds of none. Yes I think it is very likely statehood will win the majority. I would love to see Puerto Rico become like any other state. However, if statehood wins there should be a compromise so that those who did not vote for statehood aren't alienated. This compromise should be to petitio