Marianas reunification revisited

 By Bryan Manabat

Saipan—The possibility of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands reunifying for statehood requires serious engagement and an informed consent from the islands’ residents.

Guam and the CNMI are part of the same Marianas archipelago and share the same historical and cultural backgrounds, but each has a distinct political relationship with the U.S. government. These differences are the challenges facing proponents pursuing statehood for the Marianas Islands.

The federal government does not discourage unification and has established a process under U.S. Code Title 48, Chapter 17 for a political union between Guam and CNMI if it were to happen in the future.

 As the most forward U.S. territories in the Pacific, both the CNMI and Guam are considered critical to U.S. defense and power projection amid escalating geopolitical tensions in the region. A warning to China hovers these territories: “Do not cross: this is America!”

Robert Underwood, chairman of the think tank Pacific Center for Island Security, said that a reunification between Guam and CNMI requires a synchronized aspiration.

“Guam and CNMI can reunify only if they both agree to enter a different political status together,” said Underwood, former Guam delegate to the U.S. Congress and former president of the University of Guam. “In other words, if Guam and the CNMI got together and became the independent nation of the Marianas, it would be a very viable nation, but they'd have to agree that that's the status they want.”

Underwood noted that the CNMI was able to negotiate commonwealth status due to international pressure at the time to dissolve the U.S.-administered Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

Robert Underwood

Underwood said the new Trump administration has opened a new discussion in Washington D.C. about “creating a state out of Guam and Northern Marianas.”

Aware of the potential national discussion, Guam Sen. William A. Parkinson recently authored a resolution supporting “a full examination of statehood or enhanced autonomous status for Guam on terms defined by the people of Guam.”

The resolution advocated that Guam be allowed to “determine its own destiny” and “end 125+ years of colonial uncertainty.”

Following its defeat during the 1898 Spanish-American War, Spain ceded Guam to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. Spain sold the Northern Marianas, along with the Caroline Islands, to Germany under the German-Spanish Treaty of 1899. The Northern Marianas was later taken over by Japan before becoming part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands after World War II.

Guam became an unincorporated U.S. territory through the Guam Organic Act in 1950.

Unofficial polls conducted in 1958, 1961 and 1963 indicated the Northern Marianas’ willingness to reintegrate with Guam.

Hawaii’s legislature also proposed incorporating the Northern Marianas and other Trust Territory entities into the state of Hawaii in 1965.

In his book “Modern History of the Northern Mariana Islands,” local historian Don A. Farrell recorded the results of the 1969 plebiscite. The final tally was 2,688 “yes” votes and 3,720 “no” votes on the question: “Should all of the islands of the Marianas be politically reintegrated within the framework of the American territory of Guam, the new territory to be known as the Territory of the Marianas?”

Don Farrell

The Northern Marianas held a similar, separate referendum and strongly voted in favor of integration. Guam integration received 1,942 votes; freely associated state 1,116; independence 19; and unincorporated territory of U.S. 107.

Farrell wrote that several theories had been offered to explain why Guam voters rejected reintegration, one of which was that “For many Guamanians, the pro-Japanese actions of a few Northern Marianas Chamorro translators and police officers employed by the Japanese were still a fresh memory.” This has been a sensitive issue. While never talked about officially, it lurks in the background.  

In 2010, then governor Felix P. Camacho renewed talks about the Marianas reunification and sought the commonwealth’s forgiveness for Guam’s rejection vote.

“In the final analysis,” Farrell added, “the Guam rejection turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Because of the rejection, the leadership of the Northern Marianas fought on for their own unique political status, one that was to guarantee a far greater degree of self-government than was given to Guam in the Organic Act.”

In 1975, the Northern Marianas chose to become a self-governing commonwealth in political union with the U.S. through the Covenant.

“No other territory has the status CNMI achieved,” said Howard P. Willens, who represented the Marianas Political Status Commission during the negotiations with the U.S. government.

Willens said the U.S. courts have recognized the CNMI’s unique status and its sharp distinction from Guam. “While the commonwealth has ‘a unique relationship with the United States’ under the Covenant, Guam ‘is subject to the plenary power of Congress and has no inherent right to govern itself,’” he added.

Former CNMI Gov. Juan Nekai Babauta expressed support for the Northern Marianas’ potential merger with Guam and pursuit of a “full membership in the American political family through statehood.”

However, the CNMI residents’ writing on the wall indicated skepticism about the reunification proposal, saying it was just a “pipe dream.”

Among those who strongly oppose the integration is Ignacio Dela Cruz, a speech pathologist raised on Saipan.

ADVERTISEMENT

He highlighted potential issues, such as the capital site, disproportionate representation, and the loss of CNMI’s unique identity.

Dela Cruz is concerned that a Guam-CNMI integration would do more harm than good and favor one island over the other.

He said that, because Guam is more populated, “the capital would be most likely in Guam, and the new Marianas Legislature would have elected officials from Guam.”

“It's not unreasonable to think that more people from the island of Guam will be elected to those seats,” Dela Cruz added.

Similarly, Dela Cruz also expressed his concern about losing CNMI’s unique identity and autonomy. “This could spell the end of laws special to the CNMI, such as Article 12.  As far as I know, Guam does not have such a law, so anyone and everyone can purchase land there.  If Article 12 were left out of the Constitution, real estate costs would be driven up here in the CNMI.  We do not need to look further than Guam to see how much real estate has gone sky high in recent years,” he said.

Article 12 of the CNMI Constitution restricts the fee simple sale of CNMI real property exclusively to persons of Northern Marianas descent.

He said the CNMI may also have to relinquish its own flag and anthem to make way for a new state flag and anthem.

“The CNMI’s anthem, ‘Gi Talo Gi Halom Tasi,’ has been part of our lives for many years, from singing it in school to singing it during special events,” Dela Cruz said. “I doubt people in Guam would want to surrender their Guam hymn ‘Fanoghe Chamoru.’ Together with Guam, we are the Marianas. However, saying that ‘we are the Northern Mariana Islands’ distinguishes us from our southern neighbor.”

While both territories share the same heritage, there are cultural and linguistic nuances that distinguish them from one another. The Northern Marianas spells “Chamorro” as such, while Guam’s language commission has adopted the “CHamoru” spelling.

“The essence of who we are as the CNMI would cease if we were reunified with Guam,” Dela Cruz said. “No one can deny that Guam and the CNMI have their own identities, and merging them would be detrimental to our cultural and political identities."

Cultural practitioners on Guam and CNMI strongly advocate for more cultural immersion and activities, noting the significant decline in the population of native speakers and fading knowledge of traditional know-how among the younger generation.

Subscribe to

our digital

monthly edition