Congressman Fred Crawford (R., Michigan) was an architect of the bill that gave Puerto Ricans (in 1950) the right to create their own constitution. He explained his world view in a Congressional commentary (on May 5th, 1949) that is as relevant today as it was 60 years ago.

    Crawford said: "I do not know of any better time than today, this week and next week, for us to learn something about our colonial possessions and our subjects."

    To my knowledge Crawford never wore a crown; and in 1949 the  contradiction between having colonial subjects and claiming to be the leader of the "Free World" rarely bothered either the House or the Senate. Rooted in Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution -"Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;" - Congress did as it pleased. For example, it bluntly told Puerto Ricans in 1945 that they could be neither a state nor independent.  That left no traditional options on the table so the legislation crafted in 1950 and 1952 sought to create the same thing only different.

      Congress repeatedly emphasized that it wanted to be "absolutely clear": The right to create a constitution changed "nothing fundamental" in the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. In fact, when the Puerto Ricans returned a constitution that included a right to work, Congress quickly exerted the plenary power it claimed since 1898. Congress erased the right to work clause and sent the edited document back to the Caribbean. Take it or leave it.

    If nothing fundamental changed, Puerto Rico remained (and remains) a colony. However, despite Fred Crawford's honesty, it was hard for U.S. representatives at the United Nations  to call Puerto Rico a colony when they simultaneously wanted the world body ( in 1954) to make Puerto Rico the first possession removed from the UN's list of non-self governing territories. Behind the scenes Governor Luis Muñoz wanted to use the phrase "Free Associated State". Washington officials said no way; Puerto Rico was neither free nor a state so members of the Truman administration suggested the "commonwealth" label. It placed a wonderful smoke screen over the colonial truth until, at the United Nations, India's Krishna Menon accused the United States of hypocrisy.

    Menon correctly argued that the U.S. Constitution gave plenary power to Congress. So, how could U.N. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge argue that no Puerto Rican laws could be changed without the consent of the Puerto Rican government? In response, Lodge sanctioned a lie. At the United Nations  he allowed the Puerto Ricans to claim rights they did not have; and in private he loudly groused to President Eisenhower about the constant abuse and humiliation from Krishna Menon.

    Documents at the Eisenhower Library reveal the President's profoundly cynical response: Offer them independence. Say that the President supported this option and, in papers marked "top secret", truly offer them independence as a way to win a major public relations coup at the United Nations.

      The only problem with this offer was the political platform of Governor Muñoz and his Popular Democratic Party. When, after 1945, Congress said "no way" to statehood or independence he convinced the Puerto Rican people that his "Free Associated State" was the best of all political worlds. How could Muñoz do a humiliating about face after years of championing Puerto Rico's unique and wonderful political status?

    Eisenhower surrendered. He wrote "send to the secret files" on the offer of independence and Muñoz and his followers began a campaign that continues to this moment. They continually asked Congress to "enhance" Commonwealth status and Congress, just as repeatedly, reminded the Puerto Ricans of its plenary powers. In April of 1974 Senator Henry Jackson publicly told islanders that "they must remain a colony"; and , in documents at the Carter library Zbigniew Brzezinski told his boss that Puerto Rico represented a form of "neocolonialism". However, the Commonwealth mask was a nice touch when, at the U.N., Fidel Castro acted like Krishna Menon; Castro said Puerto Rico was a colony and Brzezinski agreed, as long as it was behind closed doors.

    The first President Bush pushed for statehood. And Congress actually created a bill offering the three traditional alternatives: Statehood, independence or some form of associated state. However, Congress never agreed to abide by the expressed will of the Puerto Rican people. Islanders could vote and Congress, using its plenary powers, would then decide what Congress wanted to do with its Puerto Rican possession.

   The second President Bush was surprisingly honest. In a report issued in December of 2005, he bluntly told the Puerto Ricans that a "New Commonwealth" status was impossible: Echoing Krishna Menon in 1954, Bush explained that "the U.S. Constitution does not allow for such an arrangement."  Moreover, Puerto Ricans needed to remember that, as an unincorporated territory, Puerto Rico was never intended to be a state. In fact, Puerto Ricans only enjoyed their right to citizenship under a law enacted in 1917. Congress could repeal that law whenever it wished and leave the Puerto Ricans where they were in 1900: Denizens, foreigners who lived in a colony owned by a country that waved the flag of freedom everywhere on earth, except in Puerto Rico, the oldest colony on earth.

        In November of 2009 Puerto Rico remains a terrible symbol of Congressional -and Presidential- hypocrisy. Policy makers talk about bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations but, in the Caribbean, the U.S. sits with two colonies (i.e., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islanders) and no one wants to discuss any bills in which Congress agrees to abide by the democratically expressed will of its colonial subjects.

   So, here is my suggestion. Let's start with the history. Puerto Rico is like a hushed up family secret.  No one knows the truth. In fact, if you talk to a typical U. S. Senator or Representative  the lack of knowledge is appalling. And, if you politely present documents from the Presidential libraries, the response is " that can't be true."

     Yes it is. For 111 years the United States has acted like Fred Crawford in 1949. So, to repeat his words, "I do not know of any better time than today, this week and next week, for us to learn something about our colonial possessions and our subjects."