House panel OKs resolution opposing increased military presence

Authored by Rep. Sheila J. Babauta, the revised joint resolution is “requesting that the Honorable Governor Ralph Deleon Guerrero Torres oppose any increase in destructive military presence or training in the Northern Mariana Islands, including all proposed military use of the Mariana Islands.”

It highlights the “ever-expanding and compounding plans by the U.S. military — including the Marine Relocation to Guam, Mariana Islands Range Complex, Mariana Islands Training and Testing, Divert Activities and Exercises, and CNMI Joint Military Training — many of which involve the irreparable damage of the land, sea, air, and biological systems of the Marianas archipelago.”

Sen. Sixto K. Igisomar, left, speaks during the House Committee on Federal and Foreign Affairs meeting on Tuesday in the House chamber. Photo by K-Andrea Evarose S. Limol

The resolution states that it is not opposed to the military, noting that the Commonwealth has a high per capita military enlistment rate. The CNMI, moreover, is a “valuable strategic military defense asset in the Pacific region” where the U.S. has leased “large swaths of the CNMI’s scarce land, air and water — including but not limited to over two-thirds of Tinian, highly valued realty in Tanapag, and the island of Farallon de Medinilla — for military trainings, testing, maneuvers, live-fire ranges, and bombings.”

During committee discussions, concerns were raised regarding the resolution making “a blanket opposition statement,” noting that there is some military presence that is favorable to the Commonwealth, such as the Coast Guard assisting in monitoring against illegal fishing.

Other concerns were raised regarding a declaration of emergency that former Gov. Benigno R. Fitial issued on May 13, 2003 declaring the island of Anatahan as “unsafe for human habitation, and restricted all travel to said island with the exception of scientific expeditions,” due to volcanic activity on the island.

Given that Anatahan is part of the Northern Islands, it is included in H.J.R. 21-8, although it is uninhabitable.

Sen. Sixto K. Igisomar and former Rep. Cinta M. Kaipat, who both have ties to the Northern Islands, provided input during the committee discussions, highlighting the desire of indigenous people to not only represent, but also to resettle on their ancestral homelands.

Kaipat emphasized the huge revenue-generating role that the Northern Islands has played throughout NMI history, noting that during the era of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the islands provided copra for sale both within and beyond their borders.

“Let’s stop playing games here. Let’s get serious. We’re dealing with people’s lives…. We are the endangered species, the lost [and] indigenous people of the Northern Islands. When is justice going to come for the people of the Northern Islands? Don’t our lives matter?” Kaipat asked.

Igisomar, who is the Senate counterpart of House FFA Committee Chair Rep. Luis John Castro, emphasized the importance of defining “resident” in the joint resolution, noting that the Commonwealth law requires that every voter must be domiciled and must be a resident.

He explained that a voter could have more than one residence, but only one domicile, seeing that at birth, a person is automatically assigned to the same domicile as his/her parents.

However, this makes it difficult for the people of the Northern Islands who are not residents of the Northern Islands “because they, or rather, their ancestors were forcibly relocated from their native homestead. Thus, they are not both domiciled and residents of the Northern Islands, but rather, just domiciled but not residents.”

For his part, Gov. Torres said during a KKMP press briefing on Friday, “For the record, I have never agreed to the original proposals of MITT or CJMT since I was in the Senate as Senate president, and as lt. governor and governor…. I’ve always been a steward of protecting our environment…. Culture is something that is embedded in us. It’s not just something that we fight for; it’s something that we practice.”

H.J.R. 21-8 as amended now goes to the full House for further discussion.

Original article: https://mvariety.com/cnmi-local/73-local/4470-house-panel-oks-resolution-opposing-increased-military-presence