Micronesians unhappy over ocean talks

The United States and Micronesia differ about the extent of Micronesian jurisdiction over water surrounding the islands. The United States, later this year, will represent Micronesia at a United Nations Law of the Sea conference in South America.

Recently Mr Bernard Oxman, an as sistant legal adviser to the US State Department, met the Congress of Micronesia’s Joint Committee on Law of the Sea, and the House and Senate committees on Resources and Development in a public hearing.

The Joint Committee on Law of the Sea takes the view that as an island nation, Micronesia should be allowed to assert jurisdiction on all matters within 200 miles beyond straight baselines connecting the outermost islands. As a small island nation it is denied land-based resources; it therefore claims prior rights to the resources of the sea.

The US, Mr Oxman said, un officially was prepared to go along with the Micronesian request only as far as it covered seabed resources. It would oppose any plan to block off huge areas of water to air and sea transport, as well as any plan which would not allow international con trol of highly migratory species of fish, such as tuna, which travelled great distances in the ocean, through international and national waters.

Mr Oxman said the most com plicated aspect of the law of the sea, from the US viewpoint, was that the large fishing nations, such as Japan and Russia, were vigorously opposed to a 200-mile territorial limit.

The US suggested a “species ap proach” which would give coastal nations control over stocks of fish where they existed (such as reef and shore fish), and would subject the entire tuna fish resource to inter national controls as they were highly migratory.

The members of the joint com mittee are not happy about that. They consider that as Micronesia lacks fishing fleets, getting its fair share of the catch from an international com mission might become a real prob lem.

Mr Oxman said the US was “absolutely committed” to full pre sentation of the Micronesian views at the conference. But many members of the Micronesian Congress are not satisfied that their views, and those of the US, can be reconciled.

Joint committee member Mr Charles Domnick, of the Marshalls, said during the hearing that the US position on law of the sea about the

tuna issue was a tool “to merely sanction tuna fishing as is”. He felt that would result in unfair foreign exploitation of a valuable Micronesian resource.

Many congressmen also believed there were other implications to be considered along with the Law of the Sea issue. The chief one was future political status.

Under the proposed draft of free

association, Micronesia would place complete authority over foreign affairs in the hands of the US. With the US about to represent Micronesia at an international conference, and having conflicting views, many con gressmen felt similar conflicts of interest could occur in other areas.

How the Law of the Sea issue is resolved may have a major influence on further status negotiations.