Odd coalition for

Marshall Islands

Odd coalition for a commonwealth

Of all the Micronesians, the Marshallese are the most con sistently “conservative” in their political action. Perhaps it com es of living on atolls, where one’s awareness of available resources is so acute. Perhaps it comes from a still-strong traditional system that has melded smoothly for the most part with an imported democratic form of govern ment.

Whatever the reason, the regularised beat of Marshallese politics gives it a sense of predictability that is not present in the other island groups of the Trust Territory. This factor makes it easier to understand the latest rumblings from Ma juro: calls for U.S. common-

continued on page 33

Notes from the North

Floyd K.

Takeuchi on Micronesia

wealth status instead of a free association status.

There is more, and less, to this than meets the eye. No doubt some of the backers of commonwealth truly believe the Marshall Islands would be better served by a more inti mate relationship with Washington, D.C.

But there is a broader based foundation for the common wealth calls. The theme is a rallying point for a number of disaffected Marshallese who want to stop the implementa tion of free association at almost any price.

The two notable factions are Kwajalein atoll landowners and islanders from atolls in the southern Marshalls. Each group has different reasons for advocating commonwealth, but their tactical objective is the same; delay, and scuttle if pos sible, the Free Association Compact in the U.S. Congress.

The Kwajalein people are represented by the Kwajalein Atoll Corporation. The KAC’s leadership notably Imada Kabua, a relative of the presi dent want to ensure a continued close relationship

with Washington and with that a higher degree of leverage than free association promises.

Their “bottom line” is the lease payments the United States makes for use of the atoll as a missile firing range.

One of the most perceptive analysts of Micronesian matters has been Henry Schwalben berg, a Jesuit brother who has been headquartered these past three years at the Micronesian Seminar on Truk. In his most recent memo on the politics of free association (No. 13 in a series put out by the seminar), Schwalbenberg looked at last year’s Marshallese plebiscite.

In the memo, Schwalben berg said: “Kwajalein’s con cerns would probably be best served by a continuation of the present interim use agreement (for the atoll) . . . The only way to maintain an interim use agreement system would ... be a continuation of a trusteeship like political status.”

Just below the surface of the KAC’s rhetoric in favor of com monwealth, one will find this lease system concern. And it does not take much scratching to discover the fact.

The situation with the south ern Marshallese is somewhat different. There has been con sistent opposition to Amata

Kabua on those atolls. Their support of commonwealth is but the latest manifestation of their traditional distrust of Kabua, and indeed control by the lineage he represents.

Schwalbenberg’s analysis notes: “The history of dissatis faction of the southern atolls toward the current Marshallese leadership extends to pre-colo nial times. In 1878 an iroij (chief) by the name of Kabua signed a treaty on behalf of the Marshall Islands with Germany.

This compact with Germany eventualy led to complete Ger man acquisition of the Marshall Islands in 1885. The German- Marshallese compact, besides granting the Germans numer ous trading rights, also confer red on Iroij Kabua foreign rec ognition as ‘king’ of the Mar shalls. This German conferral of authority on the iroij was challenged and never accepted by Iroij Loiak of Ebon (a south ern atoll). Hence, the first re corded opposition in the long and unsuccessful history of southern efforts to limit the power of the Kabua faction. An event not without a number of parallels to the present.”

Given the differences be tween the two groups the KAC is clearly interested mainly in using the movement to gain

leverage with the U.S. and against the national govern ment in Majuro, while the southern people are more in terested in carrying on their opposition to Kabua the odd coalition probably will not get very far.

Appealing in this fashion to the conscience of American lawmakers is coming too late, and (in the case of the KAC) the ulterior motives are evident. In fact, a call for commonwealth status seems sadly out of synchronisation with the times.

The United States proposed such a relationship in the late 19605, when the political negotiations were just getting underway. Micronesians re jected it outright (the exception being the Northern Marianas, of course).

A firm majority of Marshal lese support free association.

The opposition had its chance last September, but was not successful.

Those who oppose free association have, of course, every right to continue their struggle. And while the odds are heavily against the possibil ity, such tactics might even delay the approval of the com pact by the U.S. Congress.

Still, at this point in the political development of Mic ronesia, one cannot be faulted for asking if such delaying tac tics do more harm than good for the Marshallese. The alternative, it seems, is a seemingly unending stalemate or, worse yet, encouragement of divisive sentiments. Neither result would be a step forward for the Marshallese people.

Floyd K. Takeuchi.

Marshalls President Amata Kabua