Liberation And Conquest In Micronesia

By Senator LAZARUS E. SALII

Chairman, Micronesian Joint Committee on Political Status.

During the past three years, the United States administration of the Trust Territory of Pacific Islands has entered its final stages. Meetings between United States and Micronesia °h a ?-e h established te bask on whfch tnend Hip TlnifpH

Nations Tru“eeshin Agreement to

establish aTew M. P cronSfan Govern

ment and "o neaohSe a new defi" nit,on of the American role Tn d nnr part of the Padftf pan or tne Facitic.

My purpose, in what follows, is to discuss the nature and impact of the United States administration which was brought to our islands more than

of°’ J *'!'

discuss the relationship of restraint, arosrbe\w’een nd AmeJv a M- hlCh nesfa a b nTl wil| A r-U fk d nesia, and I will close with an mdicadoxes°w S h^ e^Vcontinue e to an o America a£d Micronesia in yeaJ-sTo come y .

When American military forces swept ashore in Micronesia, near or at the end of World War 11, they came as both liberators and conquerors. i hey ended a Japanese omimon which, had it been per-

mitted to continue its complete control of almost all aspects of Micronesian life, would have all but obliterated Micronesian races and cultures within one more generation. , During the Pf 8 * . 25 y ears , of Americ ?‘}. control ln Micronesia, many , , Ml< ; r . ones .‘ anB have fashioned no , stalg L C hlBtone , s of the Ja P anese rule . : lhe c 010 " 13 ! c| hes U built, the r ° ads ■ ■«. cut through jungles, its initiative m fishing, mining, and agriculture. They remember Japan for its discipline, its industry, its sense of purpose-qualities which have frequently been lacking in the American trusteeship.

Wh ? te ™ r its usefulness for rhetorical purposes this is not a ™?? tal § ia . in hich X ’ or most other Mlcronesian leaders, choose to participate.

Japan’s assimilation of Micronesia ould have in the permanent oss oX our cu ltures, and our ethnic identities. Since our whole purpose in recently negotiating with the Americans has been to resist such an assimilation—by Americans—l will not pretend that we would have welcorned it—or would welcome it today —at the hands of the Japanese.

Whatever criticisms are registered against America, I will not fault it for having broken if only by accident the Japanisation or Okinawaisation, of Micronesia’.

If the Americans came as libera tors, they were surely also conquerors.

As numerous administrators, visiting congressmen, task forces from Wash ington have rarely failed to remind us, control of Micronesia was “pur chased” at a high cost in American blood.

Q f course this areument overlook* cer tain crucial Micronesian elaim*that the b j ownershin of

nesia’s islands T a Hchf Z

Micronesian people; that®the islands were not and are not for sale for blood or for money; that the blood which was spilled ‘‘coming over the reef’—another favourite nhra*e_ was not spilled at the request, or for the benefit of the Micronesian people, Still, we realise that the conquest of Micronesia and the control that resulted from that conquest remains a paramount factor in America’s thinking about Micronesia Americans came as liberators and conquerors and, as such thev have remained. Both these roles figured