Joseph Stiglitz may be a Nobel Prize-winning economist, but he doesn’t know as much as he should about Puerto Rico, the subject of an opinion article by him and co-author Mark Medish in today’s Wall Street Journal. He may very well be on the right track when he argues that federal bankruptcy law should be revised to make the bankruptcy process available to the governments of Puerto Rico (and, I would add, the 50 states). That would mean a haircut for holders of Puerto Rico bonds whom he labels, unfairly I think, “vulture creditors.” And I join his cry for repeal of the Jones Act, but not as it affects Puerto Rico but altogether.
But when Stiglitz turns away from strictly economic issues, he veers far off track, as when he writes, “the U.S. must take responsibility for its imperialist past and neocolonial present” with respect to Puerto Rico. Imperialist past, maybe: Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony obtained by the United States in the 1898 treaty ending the Spanish-American War. That was 117 years ago. In 1917 the U.S. Congress voted to grant Puerto Ricans American citizenship. That’s taking responsibility, and it was 98 years ago. In 1948, pursuant to acts of the U.S. Congress, Puerto Rico elected its own governor and legislature. In 1947 a Republican Congress passed legislation allowing Puerto Ricans to elect a governor, and Luis Muñoz Marin was elected in 1958. In 1950 and 1951, a Democratic Congress passed legislation authorizing Puerto Rico to establish its own constitution, subject to approval in referendum; and a constitution was written and approved in 1952, establishing Puerto Rico as an Estado Liberado Asociado (“free associated state” in Spanish), a term much more accurately describing its status than the commonly used English word generally used as a synonym, commonwealth. That was all done at least 63 years ago.
Stiglitz and Medish are corrosively critical of this result. They write: “The commonwealth of Puerto Rico is neither fish nor fowl in the constitutional order. It lacks both the privileges of a U.S. state and the powers of a sovereign. Indeed, its relationship to the U.S. gives the lie to the notion of a ‘commonwealth.’ The U.S. wants the benefits of an offshore tax haven without the responsibilities to rescue it in time of need.”
But commonwealth status was not imposed by the U.S. on Puerto Rico; it was devised by Puerto Ricans and accepted by the U.S. Congress and successive presidents. Status has since been a controversial issue in Puerto Rico, with fiercely contested referenda on the subject in 1967, 1993, 1998 and 2012. But the issue in these is whether Puerto Rico should continue as a free associated state or whether it should seek statehood. Polling has consistently showed only a small minority, typically around 10 percent, of Puerto Ricans favoring independence.
An inattentive reader of the Stiglitz-Medish article might conclude that the United States is holding Puerto Rico in thrall, exploiting a colony where people yearn for independence. That is simply not the case. Should a significant majority of Puerto Ricans want independence, there is no doubt that Congress, any Congress, and the president, any president, would consent, and that independence would be granted in an orderly and amicable way, as it was in the Philippines in 1946.
In that case, the United States retained military bases in accord with agreement reached with the independent Philippine government. This would not be an issue in Puerto Rico, where the Roosevelt Roads naval air station and Vieques firing range were shut by order of President George W. Bush in 2004. One thing would remain to be done, however. Americans of all stripes should give thanks to the Puerto Ricans who have, as Puerto Rico political leaders like to point out, volunteered to serve in the U.S. military in disproportionate numbers.
