Insights
As we await the passage of the Compacts of Free Association , there are always underlying perceptions and avenues of thought that frame how these compacts with three Micronesian nations are seen . It is no secret that even though the nations are sovereign entities that sit as members of the United Nations , many of their Pacific island brethren see them as extensions of the American nation in the Pacific . They certainly have more autonomy than U . S . territories but they also seem more constrained by the American relationship than “ normal ” independent nations .
Trying to describe this relationship has been a tricky proposition since the arrival of foreign powers in the Pacific islands . Like the territories , these COFA relationships are the end product of imperialist machinations among the great powers . First Spain , then Germany and / or Japan and now the United States . After the end of World War II and the defeat of totalitarianism , it seemed incongruous to continue imperial holdings .
Consequently , the new United Nations ( under U . S . pressure and leadership ) gave the world non-self-governing territories and trust territories . Areas under the management of the losers in World War II were given trust territory status . Guam became a non-self-governing territory since it was governed by a winning nation . The former Japanese mandate in Micronesia was given to the United States as a trust territory . However , the U . S . managed to create a “ strategic trust ” in this system that allowed American
6
Bespoken compacts among equals or between vassals and the overlord ?
By Robert A Underwood
nuclear testing and military uses , which were specifically prohibited for other trust territories .
Historically , these relationships have been defined as “ protectorates ,” “ possessions ,” or “ territories ” ( trust or otherwise ). This was all reformulated by the creation of “ free association ” status as defined by the United Nations .
The Danish Institute for International Studies identifies five states that claim this status and each has a relationship that “ bespoke ” of a relationship with a former colonial power . Three are with the U . S . and two with New Zealand .
“ Bespoke ” means that the terms are defined by the parties involved . The U . S . has typically defined free association as being without U . S . citizenship . The New Zealand variety includes New Zealand citizenship . Membership and recognition by the United Nations of any of them mean that they are accepted as sovereign entities . If there is a gap between the bespoke part and the sovereign status , I guess we will find out eventually . Maybe in the current geostrategic competition , the precise nature of the relationship will be spoken about loudly .
If the bespoke part was really mutual , then some would argue that the U . S . and the Micronesian nations add up to four compact states . The United States is also a compact state that is obligated to carry out certain functions .
Is the U . S . obligated to promote economic development or economic dependence ? Is the U . S . supposed to guarantee the fiscal standing of the entities ? Are
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken , second right , with COFA officials in Washington . From left , Marshall Islands ’ Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Jack Ading , Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr . and FSM President Wesley Simina .
Photo courtesy of the State Department
If a U . S . facility was being planned in Yap , is it just up to Yap to agree to that ? Does it go before the FSM Congress ? Is it just an exchange of memos between U . S . and Micronesian officials combined with a handshake and some great pictures ?
these obligations bespoken , unspoken or even acknowledged ?
In exchange , are the compact states parting with some of their sovereignty ? Is the “ bespoke ” part an unspoken series of agreements regarding facilities and access that are discussed openly and in keeping with the democratic processes of each political entity ?
If a U . S . facility was being planned in Yap , is it just up to Yap to agree to that ? Does it go before the FSM Congress ? Is it just an exchange of memos between U . S . and Micronesian officials combined with a handshake and some great pictures ? The complexities seem to emerge and perhaps parts of the population will now become outspoken .
In international diplomacy , we understand that some nations are stronger than others . We realize that some nations can be bullied or subjected to such pressure that they lose freedom of movement . Can this be voluntary , a feature of genuine self-interest , or just part of the realities of strategic competition ? The urgency of this question is upon all of us in the island Pacific and especially in Micronesia . The intensity of the China-U . S . competition has altered the landscape and seascape considerably .
Some say that there are four compact states with the U . S . being one of four with reciprocal relationships . But if we just consider power , the U . S . is not a
The opinions expressed here are solely the author ' s and do not reflect the editorial position of the Pacific Island Times .
compact state . The others are subservient . Some would argue that there are three vassal states with one superpower . I am not quite sure that this is where we are . After all , there is the possibility that someone chooses to be a vassal state .
I wouldn ’ t characterize Palau , the FSM or the Marshall Islands as vassal states . At one level , they are extraordinarily clever sovereign entities that use their unique status to obligate the United States to levels of assistance not thought possible . They may have bargained their way to this dependent status . At times , they are the mouse that roars .
But why are we always focused on the Micronesian nations themselves ? What is the general purpose of the United States as an imperial power in the past ? Is it to continue the empire under another name ? Is it to underwrite the empire through policies designed to create economic dependence ? Of course , it stands for a free and democratic island Pacific for freely associated and fully sovereign states . The territories are another matter .
The unspoken ( or bespoken ) part is that the islands need to exercise that freedom in a way that advances American interests . Happy New Year !
Dr . Robert Underwood is the former president of the University of Guam and former member of the U . S . House of Representatives . Send feedback to anacletus2010 @ gmail . com .