A continuación, reproducimos la ponencia de PROELA ante el Comité Interangencial de la Casa Blanca para el caso de Puerto Rico.

Ms. Muñoz, Mr. Perelli, and distinguished Members of the Task Force, thank you for inviting me to speak on behalf of ProELA. I am Iván Antonio Rivera Reyes, President of ProELA, a political and civil organization that, for more than 30 years, has been immersed in Puerto Rico's political status debate.

Unfortunately, in today's hearing, I cannot categorically assert that Puerto Rico's situation has changed substantially in that time. Indeed, it has not changed at all. Nevertheless, the reality that we face today is completely different from the reality that existed during the 1970s. The end of the Cold War and the development of the global economy have altered the conditions in which Puerto Rico finds itself. So much so, in fact, that we have found it impossible to get back on the path of development that we were on in the 1950s. The judicial, political, and economic framework that was designed from 1950 to 1952 to facilitate this no longer serves its purpose.

Today, the only common message that you will hear from the hundreds of Puerto Ricans who have answered you call is as follows:

Things cannot stay the same.

Starting from there, the only differences that remain will be between the paths we believe our people should take.

You will hear many theories today, such as, "the United States has the obligation to make Puerto Rico the 51st State of the Union on account of civil rights." Its advocates are playing a shell game in arguing that the legitimate actions of the United States, in regulating electoral participation in accordance with the Constitution, is discriminatory toward four million US citizens who cannot elect their own Members of Congress or the President. Some of these advocates have gone so far as to appeal to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, ignoring the fact the United States is not a signatory to the American Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, they seem not to have read Article 23.2 of the Convention, which states that countries "may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities [of government participation] on the basis of...residence..."

Another far-fetched theory that you will hear today is that successful development is still possible under the framework of the Federal Relations Act of 1950. Those who support this view are unaware that, by doing so, they are implicitly renouncing Puerto Rico's inalienable right to self-determination.

It is imperative that we have one issue clearly established. A nation's right to self-determination is presently considered to be a universal right. Many experts in the field of International Law consider it to be a peremptory norm. In any case, self-determination is an unquestionable right. The concept has acquired such universal transcendence that it is likened to the prohibition of slavery. Let me make myself clear: Any Puerto Rican who defends the idea that Puerto Rico cannot determine its own destiny does so under the shadow of submission and fear, much like the slaves of old who, upon being freed, chose to remain under the care of their former masters. Their unhealthy attachment to the past, coupled with their narrow-minded view of the future, led them to fear their own agency.

A third theory that will be heard today proposes that the United States, a nation that was founded on the precepts of liberty and freedom, should force Puerto Ricans to choose between statehood and independence. It might surprise some to know that, given these options, even though independence is currently favored by a small minority of 7% of the population, there are supporters of independence who favor this theory. They do so under the impression that, should statehood win some referendum or plebiscite, Congress would reject the annexation of a territory so culturally and linguistically different from the Union. Instead of taking Puerto Rico's right to self-determination seriously, these advocates of independence seem to be winging it.

Defenders of statehood who support the third theory are indifferent to Puerto Rico's fate vis-Evis the United States, politically, judicially, and economically. Nor do they care about Puerto Ricans exercising their legitimate right to self-determination. They are indifferent to the large portion of Puerto Ricans who prefer to maintain Puerto Rico's current association with the United States. It is more important to them that they exploit the present lack of support that independence has to prevail in whatever election that may result in their victory.

Unlike those I have mentioned before, we in ProELA do not presume to proffer complex theories. Our view is simple:

1. Puerto Rico intends to exercise its inalienable right to self-determination

2. The United States has the internationally recognized responsibility to respect this exercise

We understand that the ideal way for Puerto Ricans to exercise this right is by holding a Constitutional Convention. Once we are assembled as a nation, as other civilized nations have done in the past, we shall establish the types of relations we wish to maintain with the rest of the world, including those we wish to sustain with the United States of America.

Should this Committee issue a report that does not support our position, it would be declaring its intent to flout one of its important international responsibilities: to respect and promote Puerto Rico's right to self-determination.

Instead of making any additional assertions, I would like to leave you with some additional questions that, as we undestand it, should be answered in the upcoming report due in October 2010:

1. Is Puerto Rico an unincorporated territory that could be ceded to another country?

2. Is the United States prepared to become a multinational federation?

3. Should Puerto Rico convene a Constitutional Convention, is the United States ready to attend to the political claims that would arise from such a Convention?

4. Should Puerto Rico present a Treaty of Association or Congressional Executive Agreement to the United States, would the United States Government seriously consider its negotiation, bearing in mind the balances that would have to be struck between Puerto Rico's development needs and any American economic interests situated in Puerto Rico?

Finally, I do not want to conclude my remarks without reflecting on the context in which they are presented. The mission of this distinguished Task Force, and the importance it represents to Puerto Rico, is not something to be taken lightly, which is why it is so unfortunate that your recent stay on the island was so short.

With respect to this, ProELA shall submit these remarks to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations. Once the United States submits its International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Report, we expect these facts to clarify the observation included in the report.

Thank you for your time.

Iván A. Rivera Reyes
President
ProELA