![]() |
|
Bombs
Away
By NR editors |
|
|
|
The demonstrators against the naval exercises are a rag-tag of Castroites and their mainland cheerleaders. The Rev. Al Sharpton went down for a celebrity protest and handcuffing. To his surprise, he was thrown in the slammer for 90 days, which has done him good-he went on a hunger strike, thereby losing 21 pounds. The Bush administration has now decided that the Navy can do the exercises elsewhere, and by other means, and has announced that the training on Vieques will stop in two years. When the decision was attacked Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.) sent out an angry open letter to the "men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces"; Trent Lott and John McCain were also critical the administration argued that it had been boxed in by the Clinton administration, and past Republican Congresses, which had agreed to hold a local referendum on Vieques. Leaving a decision of military import to the whim of a few thousand voters, the White House explained, was unacceptable; better to retreat than fight, and very likely, lose. Perhaps alternatives to training on Vieques could be found-although the Navy had previously insisted that none would be as good, the protestors' success there would encourage left-wing activists at any such place, and Navy secretary Gordon England seems to place too much faith in computer simulations (there is no substitute for the real thing, as gunners in the Royal Navy who shout "Bang!" instead of firing live ammunition attest). But the Vieques decision is not about military efficiency, or political prudence. Candidate George W. Bush boxed in Republican congressmen when he announced in February 2000 that he would let the Navy leave Vieques if local voters wanted it ("The desires of Puerto Rico are very important to us," Bush said on the campaign trail). This was Mr. Compassionate Conservative, trolling for the Hispanic vote. What the black vote became for Jack Kemp, the Hispanic vote is for Bush-the Great Whale of Color, surging just beyond the grasp of the GOP. There is a legitimate insight in the wishes of both men: Republicans can never improve their showing among minorities if they don't make their case to them; it is a civic duty to treat voters equally. With both men, however, the insight was swiftly corrupted by the desire for quick results. Maybe the breakthrough will be this bit of symbolism-or that concession-or this sell-out. Not surprisingly, Bush has gotten nothing for his pains: Activists denounce the 2003 pull-out as too late, and abler stateside panderers, such as Sen. Hillary Clinton and Gov. George Pataki, echo their dismay. The political news from Puerto Rico is, if possible, worse. There are Puerto Ricans who believe the Navy should be supported (many Puerto Ricans are veterans, after all). They have no organized political expression, however, because the two dominant local parties have used Vieques as a football. The pro-statehood party cites it as an instance of what goes wrong because of Puerto Rico's commonwealth status, while the pro-commonwealth party accuses the statehood forces of not protesting the bombing vigorously enough. Puerto Rico is an anomaly in American political terms a distinct but dependent nation, enjoying a variety of rights and privileges. Empires ruled by monarchs manage these situations rather well-one thinks of the native states of India, with their own coins, stamps, and maharajahs, all under the sway of the King-Emperor. Democratic republics have a harder time of it, though Puerto Rico has accepted its status for over a century. If the Puerto Rican political classes cannot say that they accept their island's special status, and that they will not let millions of contented Puerto Ricans be bullied by a handful of radicals, then we should prepare for the day when we will let them deal with Vieques, and all other problems, on their own. |