FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Colonialist Assault on Puerto Rico and the Prospects for Independence

“Porto Rico (sic) is not forgotten and we mean to have it.” Senator Henry Cabot Lodge was reassuring his friend Theodore Roosevelt. According to the New York Times, Puerto Ricans are an “uneducated, simple-minded and harmless people who are only interested in wine, women, music and dancing.”  The subject at hand for the Times, one year after the U. S. military invasion of 1898, was “Americanizing Puerto Rico.”

Upper –class haughtiness set the stage for victimization of the many by the wealthy few. Now the U. S. Congress is forcing Puerto Rico’s government to make payments on $72 billion in debt owed to U. S. banks and hedge funds.  People’s basic needs are being ignored.

The Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), passed in June 2016, created a “financial control board” that has become “the de facto government, banker, judge, jury, and executioner of Puerto Rico,” according to critic Nelson Denis.

That board on March 8, 2017 called upon Puerto Rico’s government to take emergency steps to avoid running out of money. The next day it rejected Governor Ricardo Rossello’s plan offering annual interest payments of $1.2 billion, a far cry from the  almost $6 billion actually required. But on March 11 the board accepted a revised plan; interest payments would be $800 million a year. Government pensions would be reduced and employees furloughed.  Christmas bonuses are out.

The University of Puerto Rico faces a $300 million budgetary cut and 300 public schools will be closing. The board wants to shrink healthcare spending despite reductions from 12.3 percent of the GDP in 2010 to 10.5 percent in 2014. A 50- per cent minimum-wage cut for younger workers is possible.  The retirement age, gasoline and sales taxes, and electricity rates have inched up over five years. Pensions and benefits have diminished.

Most Puerto Ricans have been used to troubles since the U. S. take-over in 1898. Now, the overall poverty rate is 45 percent; 57 percent of children live in poverty. Unemployment officially is 12.6 percent of the workforce, but only 40 percent of adults belong to the workforce. Food prices are high partly because Puerto Rico produces only 10 percent if its food.

Emigration to the United States has been a hedge against misery; as of 2008, 400,000 more Puerto Ricans were living there than in Puerto Rico. Government authorities in both countries worried about a “surplus population,” says clinical psychologist Jorge A. Montijo.  By 1965, 35 percent of Puerto Rican women of childbearing age had been surgically sterilized.

The new rulers quickly changed Puerto Rico to their liking. By 1901 both U. S. exports to and imports from the island had quadrupled. U. S. owners controlled 70,060 acres in tobacco – up from 5529 acres – and 141,248 acres in sugar cane – up from 21,505 acres; 85 percent of the island’s manufacturing was in U. S. hands. As of 1928, four sugar syndicates owned over half of all arable land.

Legal arrangements facilitated U. S. control of the island’s economy and political life. An “Organic Charter” in April 1900 handed control of Puerto Rico to the U. S. Congress.  Another such law in 1917 gave Puerto Ricans U. S. citizenship (without representation in Congress) – just in time for them to be drafted as soldiers in World War I. Congress’ “Law 600” of 1950 allowed for a Puerto Rican Constitution and declared Puerto Rico to be a “Free Associated State,” a label used to persuade the United Nations General Assembly to remove Puerto Rico from its list of colonized territories.

Congress reserved the right to approve that Constitution before it took effect; its provisions would always give way to U. S. laws. It specified that “payment of interest and amortization of the debt [is] the first priority.”

Other legal straitjackets: Congress’ Merchant Marine Act (Jones Act) of 1920 required that cargoes going from one U.S. port to another – Puerto Rico included – be carried in a U. S. owned and operated ship, with a U. S. crew. Shipping costs went up as did prices for imported goods. And, rejecting a defendant’s claim of protection from double jeopardy, the Supreme Court ruled June 9, 2016 that Puerto Ricans bow to only one sovereign, the federal government.

Today, left-over effects of Section 936 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code are ravaging the daily lives of most Puerto Ricans, or soon will be.  Regulations imposed in 1976 exempted U.S. companies operating in Puerto Rico from paying taxes on income or capital gains. U. S. investors would pay no taxes on dividends paid by those companies. And taxes weren’t due on U. S. investments deposited in Puerto Rican banks.

Section 936 was “nothing but a welfare program for the Fortune 500,” said a tax attorney. U. S. companies in Puerto Rico generated $14.3 billion in income in 1995 alone. The island’s economy grew. Meanwhile successive governments were relying on “multi-million” dollar loans to make up for sharply reduced tax collections. Federal monies flowed to the island and public -sector hiring increased. Government leaders and citizens fell into dependency.

Then, beginning in the 1990s and ending in 2006, authorities in Washington phased out Section 936. U. S. companies closed operations in Puerto Rico or cut back production. Industrial jobs fell by one third.  Between 2006 and 2014 Puerto Rico’s GDP contracted by 13 percent, thus “provoking a new wave of migration,” with heavy middle class representation. Soon “Puerto Rico [was] essentially running on bonds held by U.S.-based banks and corporations” – and hedge funds. The PROMESA law came to their rescue.

Puerto Ricans are resisting. Students at various branches of the University of Puerto Rico marched and demonstrated in late February against threats to schools and University programs. Teachers joined them, pointing to poorly-paid professors now being hired on short-term contracts. The Communist Party’s Abayarderojo newspaper labeled school closings and reorganization of educational districts into independent entities, which is contemplated, as “war on public education.”

The struggle to shed Puerto Rico’s colonial status is at low ebb.  The Independence Party has gained little support from voters in recent elections and in referenda on relations with the United States. Most Puerto Ricans have voted either for one party inclined toward statehood or another tending toward autonomy. Nowhere to be found is high – profile, anti-colonial agitation centering on exploitation of the working class.

It was different once. From the 1930s into the early 1950s, the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party propelled the independence movement. Pedro Albizu Campos, the Party’s president told members that, “We will immediately free the worker from labor leaders disoriented by the Yankees … who have him carrying the North American flag, whose dark shadow reigns over this colonial government that has converted us into slaves of North American corporations and businesses.”

The first item of the Party’s economic program spoke of “organization of workers so they can demand from foreign interests or invaders participation in gains to which they have a right.” Albizu maintained that workers are “the true power and true source of wealth belonging to the homeland.”  Striking sugar cane workers in 1934 called upon Albizu Campos to lead their strike.

The Nationalist Party faded after terrible repression including massacres and imprisonment of leaders. Albizu Campos served two long terms in prison, where he was tortured.  The story was otherwise in Cuba; there, revolutionaries brought two struggles together, one for national sovereignty, the other for social justice.

Alejandro Torres Rivera, leader of the National Hostos Independence Movement and a lawyer, provides commentary as relevant to Puerto Ricans’ resistance today as it was to the Nationalists he was writing about:

“[T]o have the national demand for independence be taken up by a social class like the working class made for a more persuasive questioning of the colonialist and imperialist project of the United States in Puerto Rico.   Imperialism was also aware of the danger to its interests from the political demand for liberty, sovereignty, and independence being merged in a common program with the social and economic claims of the working classes of Puerto Rico.”

More articles by:

W.T. Whitney Jr. is a retired pediatrician and political journalist living in Maine.

January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: When Just One Man Says, “No”
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Two
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
Vijay Prashad
5.5 Million Women Build Their Wall
Nicky Reid
Lessons From Rojava
Ted Rall
Here is the Progressive Agenda
Robert Koehler
A Green Future is One Without War
Gary Leupp
The Chickens Come Home to Roost….in Northern Syria
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: “The Country Is Watching”
Sam Gordon
Who Are Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists?
Weekend Edition
January 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Richard Moser
Neoliberalism: Free Market Fundamentalism or Corporate Power?
Paul Street
Bordering on Fascism: Scholars Reflect on Dangerous Times
Joseph Majerle III – Matthew Stevenson
Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
How Tre Arrow Became America’s Most Wanted Environmental “Terrorist”
Andrew Levine
Dealbreakers: The Democrats, Trump and His Wall
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail