The Editor's Mailbag

What Happened At Hana?

As A Member Of U.S.

Delegation At Micronesian

Future Political Status

Talks Held At Hana, Hawaii,

In October, And As One Of

Those Involved In Prepara

Tion U.S. Position Papers For

Those Talks, Regretfully

Must Advise You That

Story On Status Talks Ap

Pearing In November Issue

Pim Highly Biased And Ex

Tremely Inaccurate. This

Must Have Resulted

From Careless Or Only

Partial Reading Of Trans

Cripts By Your Honolulu

Correspondent.

(A) At No Time Did U.S.

Delegation Discuss Any

Provisions For Special Pro

Tection American Citizens

And Businesses In Micro

Nesia. (B) Contrary Your

Article, U.S. Declared That

Settlement Would Assure

No U.S. Eminent Domain In

Any Circumstances. Micro

Nesian Control And Juris

Diction Over Micronesian

Lands Would Be Absolute.

(C) Article Faulted U.S.

Delegation For Not Dis

Cussing Procedures For

Micronesian Adoption Of A

Micronesian Constitution.

Such A Charge Displays

Total Ignorance American

Position. That Is A Micro

Nesian Issue For Micro

Nesian Resolution Not

American. (D) Article

Found Fault With U.S.

Position That, Owing

Strategic Location Micro

Nesia, Arrangements Are

Desired For Leasing Lands

For Defense Purposes.

Article Ignores Fact Con

Gress Of Micronesia And

Micronesian Status Com

Mittee Both Have Publicly

Recognized And Acknow

Ledged U.S. Security

Interests In Micronesian

Area And Have Committed

Micronesia To Meeting

Those Requirements As

Micronesia’S Contribution

To An Association Between

Micronesia And United

States. (E) The Article

Displayed Basic Misunder

Standing U.S. Position And

Proposals By Stating, “U.S.

Believes It Should Retain

Power And Lease Most Of

It To Micronesians”. In

Point Of Fact. Basic U.S.

Position Was That U.S.

Authority And Responsibi

Lities In Micronesia Would

Be Strictly Limited To

Functions Agreed To By

Micronesia And Detailed In

Compact For Association,

Which Would Have To Be

Endorsed By Congress Of

Micronesia And Ultimately

People Of Micronesia In An

Act Of Self-Determination.

These Functions Would

Relate Primarily To

Foreign And Defense

Affairs And To Such

Services (Eg, Banking And

Currency, And Postal

Service) As Might Be Re

Quested By Micronesia.

Hope You Can Balance

Article In Question With

Further Story Based On

Facts. Regards.

John C. Dorrance.

Department Of State

Political Advisor,

Trust Territory Of

Pacific Islands, Saipan.

• Regards to you too, John, but stop splitting hairs, or else get down out of the clouds. We used several correspondents, as our dateline indicated, and our combined report developed from attitudes expressed by many delegates themselves. What happened at Hana is a matter of interpretation. It is clear, though, that what the US Administration thought it was offering the Micro nesians, and what the Micronesians understood was being offered, are not the same thing, and if John Dorrance continues to insist, as he seems to have been insisting through out the Trust Territory in recent weeks, that his Authorised Version is the one true one, then he is a cert to earn PlM’s coveted 1971 award of the Coconut Cluster for Wooden heads.

As examples of the differences in interpretation, take point (a). Quoting

from John Dorrance’s own Press statement of November 9. the Micro nesians “asked for free entry of Micronesians and Micronesian pro ducts into the US, but did not accept that such rights be reciprocal”. The US, “maintained that they must be reciprocal, but pointed out that Micronesia could exercise effective indirect controls over the entry of Americans and US products.” Well, John, since you don’t know, some Micronesian delegates see reciprocal rights as giving special protection to Americans, as opposed to the rest of the world. (b) The US certainly agreed it “would exercise no rights of eminent domain in Micronesia”. But some Micronesians are still suspicious, because they hold that the US has no right to eminent domain anyway, and should not be in a position either to exercise it or not exercise it. That subtle difference (and similar subtle differences all the way through the talks) resulted in what PIM modestly considered was its brilliant summing up of the basic difference between American and Micronesian approaches at the talks — i.e.: “the Micronesians believe they should have all the power and lease some of it to the US; the US believes it should retain power and lease most of it to the Micronesians.” Please ponder the subtlety of that.

Look at it against your point (c).

What the Micronesians were seeking was enough information on American attitudes to enable them to visualise a Micronesian constitution acceptable to the US, and when they got no encouragement, some of them wondered if the US was holding out for an ulterior motive. Is that reaction so extraordinary?

We could go on, down to point (e).

Both sides still have these sorts of differences in interpretation to clear up. They still have to under stand clearly where they are going, and trust each other. Ever optimistic as usual, PIM is among those, probably leads those, who believe this will be done, and done with goodwill. But the preparation of a position paper is no guarantee that the position is understood by the fellow on the other side of the table. — Ed.