Should the CNMI change its status?

Congressman Stanley Torres has re-introduced legislation to study alternatives for the CNMI's status and relationship with the U.S. Although we don't want to pre-empt the work of the commission that would be created to study this issue under the legislation, we can at least get the discussion going. Should the CNMI change its status? If so, what should it change its status to?

One option would be independence in "free association" with the U.S. This is the status that applies to the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau. Although the freely associated states enjoy more automony than the CNMI, their autonomy is compromised by their heavy dependence on U.S. aid. And although they receive very high levels of aid per capita, they probably receive significantly less than what they would have received had they chosen to become territories. The FSM and the Marshalls have not been able to use their aid to get themselves on a path to sustainable economic development. If Palau has done better, it is perhaps because of its small and more concentrated population, better location (closer to Asia) and natural beauty that is amazing even by Pacific Island standards.

Also, other than the right to use FDM and training facilities on Tinian and the Northern Islands (all of which the U.S. military could probably live without), what would motivate Uncle Sam to cough up a huge economic aid package under a Compact of Free Association with the Republic of the Northern Mariana Islands?

Independence without free association with the U.S. is another option. Places like Kiribati demonstrate how difficult it is for small Pacific island nations to support themselves without a major benefactor.

How about reunification with Guam? Could that lead to eventual statehood? The population of Wyoming, the state that currently has the fewest people, is just over 500,000, and Alaska, North Dakota and Vermont each has less than 665,000 people.

How about the status quo? Is that so bad?

The U.S. Constitution probably doesn't allow any options other than those listed above, at least in terms of affiliation with the U.S. (If we missed one, please point it out.)

Is this bill motivated by bad feelings over the recent federalization debate? Is this a discussion that is nonetheless worth having?