Until the last sentence, this draft had not addressed the most significant inquiry likely to be on the reader's mind: granting that statehood cannot accomplish decolonization, does that imply (1) that statehood is not a step in the direction of decolonization and (2) that statehood would not significantly improve the economic situation and other measurements of human welfare for Puerto Rican people?

This is addressed at last, in the conclusion and in conclusory form by the final sentence. I think the best route to improvement is to incorporate this necessary part of the discussion into the draft from the top, in order to give the reader confidence that you intend to show not only that statehood is insufficient but that for articulated reasons it does not contribute to and retards the achievement of fundamental goals.

The reader may well feel: (1) that if statehood would greatly improve peoples' lives while more generations needed to struggle for decolonization, it cannot be dismissed out of hand; (2) that many other people in the US must struggle with racism, with poverty, and with the history of hostility and exploitation from "above" in a system supposedly dedicated to equality. There are common goals and methods in those various struggles. Two US Senators from the State of Puerto Rico right now would have a near-revolutionary effect not only on the island's fortunes within the US, but on all those other struggles simultaneously. That's nothing to sneeze at, even though it isn't the decolonization of Puerto Rico. Engaging those ideas and explaining the grounds of your response helps the reader, and helps you.