(Please note: I am a dabbler on the following issue. Coming from a city with a large Latino population, I always just thought the following subject was an interesting debate . . .)
Puerto Rico is a beautiful tourist destination, has a rich culture, and is not a country at all. As a commonwealth, or a “permanent association with a federal union” (http://www.laht.com/article.asp?Categoryid=14092&ArticleId=364571), Puerto Rico benefits from many features of the U.S. as a nation-state, the main being “politico-military rule” (O&R 2). It also relies on the U.S. for 85 percent of its imports (http://www.virginislandsnewsonline.com/news/u-n-draft-urges-u-s-grant-puerto-rico-sovereignty). Still, despite the U.S.’s aid, unemployment remains at 17 percent (virginislandsnews).
Thus, there has been an ongoing debate. On August 27, 2010, Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi stated that a 2011 referendum on the region’s government would give the choice of commonwealth (no change), statehood, independence, or sovereignty with U.S. relations (laht). Those for independence liken the U.S.'s presence in Puerto Rico to the BP oil spill (virginislands). Those against note the population’s American patriotism and the country’s insufficient resources to support the economy (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/29/house-approves-puerto-rico-statehood-measure).
The question of Puerto Rico’s independence comes down to the definition of sovereignty and capability. To a certain extent, Puerto Rico should be sovereign. With its “vestiges of colonialism” (laht), Puerto Rico certainly has its own history that unites its people. True, the U.S. has power over P.R., and in turn by definition of sovereignty, holds the people’s obedience/loyalty and representation (O&R 2), but without this babysitter connection, P.R does have an identity already in place, furthered by being an island. Building off of nationalism, if P.R. were to become independent, would it be capable of becoming a nation-state? It would have the authority to do as it pleases, but would it have the capability to rule effectively? This leads back to SIS-105-081UC lecture notes from 8/31: “to extend capacity beyond its own resources, [a nation must have] authority and power.” Yet, does a nation have to be efficient in politics, military power, and financial matters to be recognized, or can it just remain an inefficient nation-state? Do “corrupt” nation-states count, do “poor” nation states count (i.e. Cubans make $18/month, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2886.htm), etcetera . . . or should they lose their statuses? I think they should remain, but they should also receive an initial amount of aid. It is unrealistic to “colonize” inefficient nation-states. Consequently, “sovereignty” becomes a label of nation-states, yielding authority, but respect and power must be earned for O&R’s nation-state to triumph.
You've raised a couple of interesting points here that I think deserve further discussion and reflection:
ReplyDelete"P.R does have an identity already in place, furthered by being an island. Building off of nationalism, if P.R. were to become independent, would it be capable of becoming a nation-state?" You've done a nice job tying together themes from the past two classes here: nationalism from our soccer discussion and statehood from our sovereignty discussion. What role do you think national identity plays in sovereignty? Is it necessary? Can a non-nation-state create a national identity its citizens? Should it?
The second point I wanted to comment on is this question of what should happen to sovereign states that, for whatever reason, don't seem to be living up to the requirements for sovereignty. The issue seems to be that once granted, sovereignty is very hard to revoke. Do you think the international community can decide a state is no longer sovereign? If so, what should trigger this change in status? If not, what is it about sovereignty that makes it irreversible?
Hi Erin,
ReplyDeleteJust some reflections, based on the knowledge acquired through the first half of this course:
National idenitity is not necessary for sovereignty, but it does help a lot. Identity unites a country and gives its citizens a common purpose, so that they can form an "us" and call others "them." This has been the case for France, almost oppresively so, as evidenced during our trip to the Embassy. Thus, the borders of a country become firmer because ideology trumps physical strength (i.e. Without loyalty, Machiavelli's soliders might as well be mercenaries). However, a tricky case is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Though one state, it is not effective with a split identity.
Moving onto non-nation states, it is possible to create "national" identity. How else did nation-states became the way they are? Should it create a common identity is another question. It may depend on the non-nation state's purpose, especially in the IR world. Does it aim towards sovereignty? Does it want aid from other countires? Does it want authority? Does it want military reinforcements? Does it just want to "be," and remain dependent on another nation-state?