Micronesian leaders united by Congress

would have believed that the Congress of Micronesia was to be the instru ment of our escape. When it began in 1965, the Congress was more an advisory council than a true legisla ture; its laws were subject to vetoes which could not be overridden, it had almost no power of the purse, and practically all of its members—myself included —were also employees, middle-level and white collar, of the executive branch of the Trust Terri tory government. We were a Con gress of amphibian creatures, half government executive, half-elected Congressman, and we were almost equally powerless in both our chosen elements.

All that we had in our Congress was a forum and we made the most of it—freely, naively, sometimes irre sponsibly. There was a gadfly’s delight in calling one’s immediate superior to a Congressional hearing and closely interrogating him on the administrative mishaps which we had witnessed and, in some cases I am sure, been a party to.

In a general way, 1 suppose the Congress stood for more and better government without really much con sidering the implications these might have on the political future of the territory.

One thing of true value did result from the Congress, however: the slow definite growth of unity among the various Micronesian leaders who con verged on the Congressional chambers on Saipan. It was a unity which any previous foreign administration in Micronesia would have taken pains to discourage, an unprecedented unity with incalculable implications for the future of the islands.

There are two other points to re member about the Micronesian unity that developed in our Congress, how ever. First, it was a unity sponsored —financed—by our administration.

Second—and paradoxically—it was a unity that derived, in large part from our common opposition to that ad ministration.

In the late 1960’5, there occurred three developments which transformed the Congress, altered completely the form of political life in Micronesia, and began the process which will end with the termination of our American Trusteeship.

The first came in 1969, when mem bers of Congress were obliged to choose between their administrative and legislative roles. Those who re mained with the Congress became full-time Congressmen, more serious and committed than ever before. The

second event was the Congress’ deter mined and deeply-felt effort to pass a major piece of legislation which, in itself, would have resulted in an im portant shift in the nature of the American trusteeship. We attempted to pass an eminent domain bill which would have transferred the ultimate power over Micronesia’s lands from an American - controlled executive branch to a Micronesian Congress.

Twice the bill was passed. Twice the bill was vetoed.

The third major development— partially a result of our failure to capture eminent domain in Congress —was the initiative Congress took in seeking to end the United Nations Trusteeship, to end the intolerable power that the trusteeship vested in our liberator-conqueror, and to begin a new political status in Micronesia.

Over the past three years, we have endeavoured to persuade the United States that Micronesia ought to be come a self-governing State in free

Continued on p. 123

association with the United States.

This relationship of free association involves four basic principles and legal rights. These are Micronesia’s right to self-determination, to make its own laws, to control its lands, and to end unilaterally any future re lationship with the United States.

We particularly insisted on the right of unilateral termination as an indispensable safeguard for a small island state in a relationship with a global superpower. Unilateral termi nation is a final insurance not only against our being abused or ignored but also against our being embraced to death.

After some initially discouraging responses, the United States has acceded, or substantially acceded, on all four of these crucial matters.

The United States, in turn, has demanded sweeping powers over Micronesian foreign affairs and de fence and has already requested certain continuing military base rights and options in Micronesia.

These are troublesome requests, but we are now more confident than we have ever been that there exists a basis for self-government in Micro nesia and for an honourable future partnership with the United States.

And there is some hope that, with Micronesian control of government, we may find our way out of the economic as well as political diffi culties that confront us: that we might yet strike a decent, stable non exploitative balance between the free dom and expectations of the 20th century life and the Micronesian values we will always cherish: our regard for, and duty towards, the islands we were born on and the Micronesian people who will always remain there.

There remains one great, nagging footnote to this story, however, and I would be giving a false report if I did not record it.

We all have heard- how scattered * s^anc^s °f Micronesia, a mere 700 square miles of land in three million square miles of sea; how divided are its peoples, by distance, by religion, by their six major ethnic groups, by nine mutually unin telligible languages. This, all of this, is true.

Under American administration however, we have been unified; our support from our liberator and to our conqueror united us We were united first by his very

presence here; we were united by the trusteeship which bound us to gether; we were united in the schools we were sent to and in our reaction to the society we returned to; we were united in the Congress our administrator sponsored and we were united in our congressional criticism of the programmes our ad ministrator proposed. We were united in seeking a change of status and now—as we approach agreement on status—we are beginning to lose our unity.

The America we loved and we fought now is on the edge of with drawal from the government of Micronesia, and we Micronesians find ourselves looking at each other in a new light.

Separatist tendencies flare up again in Micronesia. Already one district long-oriented towards close member ship to the American territorial system has sought its own negoti ations with the United States, and others consider separate negotiations for their own purposes.

Already debate begins about the division of government revenues among districts, about the apportion ment of executive powers between districts, about the necessary strength, or the necessary weakness, of a future central government. Ironically, just as Micronesia approaches a unique political status which will give its people greater control of the issues that affect their lives than they have ever had, just at this crucial moment, Micronesia begins to divide and frag ment. The unity we developed under our liberator - conqueror begins to desert us. This does not speak well for the future of Micronesia.

We must concede that thus far in cur history, it has always been the threatening presence of foreigners, of conqueror-liberators which has united us. Fear of what others might do to our islands has united us. And yet, perhaps Micronesians would do well to remember that no matter what status we achieve, our islands will always be small, our numbers will always be limited.

Micronesia will always be threatened and, for this reason, we must always remain united. The in terests of the great power swing back and forth like a pendulum over our islands; the pendulum swings from one side to another, moving away and returning, but never ceasing to hang above us, never forgetting our presence down below.

In the days and years to come there will be ample reason for our islands to remain together and there is hope, only hope, that in time we may find something more than fear to unite us.