Puerto Rican independence By HECTOR RIVERA The present status of Puerto Rico as a colony, or so-called ‘‘Free Associated State’’ (ELA), is rapidly becoming unacceptable to most Puerto Ricans. The United Nations’ Committee on Decolonization last year again called for the transfer of all power from the U.S. to the people of Puerto Rico and demanded that the U.S. government ‘‘terminate all its military ac- _ tivities in Puerto Rico and allow the people of Puerto _ Rico to live in peace in their own territory.”’ But the U.S. refuses to comply with international consensus. In fact, the U.S. even refuses to admit that the island is a U.S. colony, and continues to claim that all the Puerto Rican people need do is ask for an end to ties with the U.S. and their request will be granted. ' These claims make a mockery of what the inter- National community and the Puerto Rican people are well aware: U.S. imperialism does not intend to give up its stranglehold on the island and is, in fact, extend- ing its control. On the economic front, Puerto Rico is totally under the domination of U.S. multi-nationals. U.S. capital controls 85 percent of the country’s commerce and Backgrounder industry. With $14 billion in capital investments on the island, U.S. companies take in over $1.5 billion in annual profits. But Puerto Rico is more than just a profit making “‘paradise’’ for U.S. businesses. It is also the center for U.S. military operations in the Caribbean. Nuc- lear warhead missiles are stationed on the island and * 13 percent of the arable land is occupied by the milit- ary. The Roosevelt Roads naval base, in Ceiba, is one of the largest U.S. military installations outside of its continental boundaries. The U.S. has turned Puerto Rico into a military outpost froth which it can launch aggressive actions against any nation in Latin America and the Carib- one bean that dares to defy U.S. imperialism by seeking genuine national independence and sovereignty. In spite of the facade of self-government as rep- resented by the ELA, the island’s affairs are directed from Washington. Puerto Rico is subject to the laws of the U.S. Congress, the decrees of the executive branch and the rulings of the Supreme Court: Although forced to abide by the dictates of the Federal government, the people of Puerto Rico can- not vote in Federal elections. They are not allowed representation in the Congress, with the exception of a non-voting Resident Commissioner who is nothing more than a lobbyist for the colonial government. Asa result, the Puerto Rican people do not exercise con- trol over the political and economic destiny of their country. A so-called ‘‘alternative’’ to Puerto Rico’s present status is statehood. This line is pushed by the Nuevo Partido Progresista (NPP), now under the leadership of Carlos Romero Barcelo. Romero was re-elected governor last November by a slim margin (about 3,500 votes) over former governor Rafael Hernandez Col- on, whose Partido Popular Democratico (PPD) favors continuation of the ELA. The closeness of the election results coupled with the continued deterioration of the economy (at least 40 percent of the Puerto Rican workforce is un- employed and close to 70 percent of the population depends on food stamps for their survival) forced Romero to cancel plans to hold a plebiscite on Puerto Rico’s political status in 1981, bringingto a halt, atleast for the time being, his push toward statehood. Romero’s re-election should not be interpreted as an indication that the Puerto Rican people favor statehood. Traditionally the two bourgeois parties have not raised the political status of the island as a ’ campaign issue. The economic questions and the abil- ity of one or the other party to govern are usually the issues that determine the outcome of an election. Both parties have the same ultimate goal: closer ties with the U.S. economic and political system. The pro-independence forces have never had equal access to the big-business controlled media. Pro- independence activists are subjected to persecution, repression and imprisonment. Under these condi- tions, and the others already mentioned, the free exercise of the peoples’ right to self determination is impossible in Puerto Rico. Realizing that a nation that has been dominated by an outside power for over 83 years, whose culture and traditional institutions are constantly under attack by U.S. imperialism, cannot freely express its will as long as it continues to be held as a colony, Congress- man Ronald Dellums (D-Cal) introduced legislation in Congress, which, if passed, would force the U.S: to comply with the UN recommendation. The Dullums resolution calls for the unconditional transfer of all power exercised by the U.S. govern- ment to the people of Puerto Rico and the removal of all U.S. military forces from the island. In this way, the Puerto Rican people will be able to choose the final political status of their country, free from U.S. inter- ference, while enjoying full self-government in the interim. * . ‘ = ay * . - "eo r ~ 7 * i ae Sanctimonious MPs loot public treasury Last May Minister of Finance Eachen presumed to lecture the _ Working people of our economically troubled land about belt-tightening. He did so in these words, ‘‘ ... people must be prepared to absorb food and energy Costs without attempting to cushion themselves against increases through r wages.’ (our emphases) Two months later he and his fellow Alfred Dewhurst Marxism-Leninism Today bers know better than most, that while real wages drop as inflation climbs, cor- limit. No, the cause of inflation is not wages but monopoly and multi-national control of the economy; plus the huge arms drive fired by U.S. imperialism, which succes- sive Liberal and Conservative govern- poration profits soar as if the sky is the |- MPs voted themselves a whopping 31% Increase in wages and fringe benefits, €ven though they had received a seven Per cent increase last January. * * & As to be expected party differences Were laid aside during the short five hours Parliament spent in deciding what the MPs would take. On this score a father tricky ploy was pressed into ser- Vice. The recommended wage package Submitted to Parliament by the special task force on salaries, was one-third higher than what was accepted by the MPs. For, in the name of “‘restraint’’, the MPs decided to take only two-thirds of What was offered. _ Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce Herbert Gray put it this way In a press interview: ‘‘It will be a very - 800d example” if other groups in indus- try were also prepared to accept less than What an independent board proposed as 4 salary increase. What a pile of sanctimonious double- = Let’s just take a look at what they * * * The 31% pay hike gives an ordinary MP $19,600 a year more, bringing his salary to $40,200 a year up from $30,600. In addition he will receive a $14,000 tax- free yearly expense allowance. MPs holding additional positions in the House such as prime minister, cabinet min- isters, leaders of the opposition parties and party house leaders will receive addi- tional salaries in accordance to the posi- tions they hold. All salaries are indexed in line with inflation increases. Now, for a look at the fringe benefits. MPs after serving six years will be enti- tled to immediate collection of pensions regardless of age. After 15 years’ service, again regardless of age, MPs are entitled to a full pension based on 75% of the salary received at the time of retirement, whether as an ordinary member, leader or minister. Pensions are fully transfera- ble to spouses. When the retired member reaches the age of 60, all the increases by way of indexing for inflation occurring after leaving Parliament will be added to the pension. An MP leaving Parliament before six years, whether it be through defeat in an election or by choosing not to run again, will receive severance pay of 50% of whatever salary received at that time. At the present salary rate, it would be $20,000! * * * This extraordinary wage package was conceded without the MPs having to re- sort to conciliation, arbitration or strike. Pretty cushy one would think. Compare that effortless gain with the struggle the postal workers are compelled to put up to even get negotiations underway. Indeed, one cannot help but suspect that the whole deal on the MPs’ wage package is the result of connivance be- tween the Government, the Treasury Board, Parliament and the MPs to loot the public treasury at the expense of the taxpayers. It smacks of bribery. To say the least, it’s an outrageous scandal. * % * ‘While the big employers and govern- ment are determined to prevent workers’ wages from catching up with inflation, on the excuse that wages are the cause of inflation, the MPs got their catch-up and more to boot. Actually, the MPs’ salary deal is proof that even the government and opposition members reject the of- ficial propaganda line that wages are the cause of inflation. The honorable mem- ments have committed Canada to. * * * The pretense of fighting inflation with governmental policies of monetary ism, restraint, austerity and high interest rates neither reduce inflation nor unemployment. Rather, this alleged anti-inflation strategy is deliberately de- signed to slow down the economy and create unemployment. The name of the game is: lowering working peoples’ liv- ing standards. The prize? Higher profits for big business. Workers and their unions will not be taken in by the sanctimonious preaching of cabinet ministers. Instead they will struggle for the wages they need to beat back the government-employer offen- sive against their living standards. It will take quite a bit to catch up. In June of this year it took $236.80 to buy what $100.00 did in 1971. * * * In addition to the wage struggle, what needs to be done is for the working people and their democratic organiza- tions to unite and defeat the govern- ment’s crisis program, and replace it by the Peoples’ Program that puts peoples’ need ahead of monopoly profits. rrp eNom HNRReNarnRmRT mre el PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JULY 31, 1981—Page 5