Micronesia; Where will the Third World stand?

Third World stand?

Henry M. Schwalben

BERG S.J., in the conclud ing article of a two-part series, discusses the role of Third World countries in the quest by the new Micronesian political en tities for international legi timacy. The first part of this article appeared in RIM,

August.

The key to Micronesian suc cess, however, will be where does the Third World stand.

The Third World nations will be confronting an issue where East and West are squarely opposed and hence will try to avoid making any commitment to the extent possible. However, when the decision needs to be made in the Security Council, they will look with particular attention to what the indepen dent nations of the Asian and Pacific region have to say. Of primary importance will be the independent Pacific Island na tions, in particular Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Next in importance will be the opinions of Australia and New Zealand followed by the ASEAN nations and Japan. There seems little doubt that most if not all of these nations will support the Micronesians.

President Nakayama of the Federated States, Chief Secre tary Deßrum of the Marshalls, and Vice-President Oiterong of Palau spent a good part of their time in New York meeting with the ambassadors of these na tions. The Micronesians re ported favorable receptions.

There are, however, three problem spots. They are Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and In dia. India is a leader in the Third World, a strong proponent of decolonisation, and at times a close friend of the Soviet Un ion. The Indians are expected to be sceptical of a decolonisa tion process leading to a status less then full independence, especially when the super-pow er United States is involved. A particularly critical country, be cause of its leadership among Pacific island nations, is Papua New Guinea. PNG’s UN

ambassador is the chairman of the Decolonisation Committee of the UN General Assembly. In that role he has been seen supportive of those opposed to the Micronesian free association status. Yet, he has also been very outgoing and receptive to the Micronesian government representatives. It is difficult to judge his position. This may be of little importance since a PNG decision on an issue of such importance to the Pacific will probably be made in Port Moresby and not independent ly by their UN ambassador.

Although the Micronesian governments are confronted by dangerous reefs, they are, nonetheless, driven by a strong wind the freely expressed will of their people. UN mis sions, consisting of members from France, United Kingdom, PNG and Fiji, observed the plebiscites in the Federated States and the Marshall Islands.

These missions concluded that the Micronesian plebiscites approving free association were conducted by the local govern ments “so as to ensure the free and fair expression of the wishes of the people”. The American Ambassador, Harvey Feldman, argued that respect for the free decision of the Micronesian people “must be viewed as the single absolute criterion and the overriding standard and goal” in judging the legitimacy of free associa tion. The fact that the decision for free association was con firmed in free and fair popular votes is what largely validates the legitimacy of this status and is the main argument that will probably prevail against the formidable obstacles facing the Micronesians at the United Na tions as well as the U.S. Con gress.

There are two very important lessons to be learned. If free and fair votes are to be the major criterion for judging the legitimacy of free association, then the Palauan government must learn carefully from what was said about their latest Com pact referendum at this UN meeting. The Palauan govern ment must not publicly state

again that an agreement does not allow the U.S. to transit and store nuclear weapons when in fact it does. Privately, the French and the British were relieved when it became im possible for them to form a UN mission to observe this latest Palauan vote and lend it creditability. Due to haphazard planning the Palauan govern ment was unable to communi cate an invitation for UN observation in the time neces sary to organise such a mission.

Futhermore, the Palauan gov ernment must not again claim passage of an agreement when in fact it has not been passed. It is to the Americans’ credit that they opposed the Palauan gov ernment when it argued that the Compact had been approved even though it had received less than the required 75 per cent. It can be hoped that the Palauan representative

was attentive when the French delegate during the general de bate argued that now it was all the more necessary for Palau and the United States to find an acceptable solution to their im passe “by respecting legal proc edure”.

The Marshalls and Federated States also have a lesson to learn from this meeting of the Trusteeship Council. Choosing a status of less than independ ence may be financially lucra tive, but its legitimacy is difficult to defend. If during the course of free association the Microne sians elect to continue their already overwhelming de pendency on the U.S. by insis ting on a whole range of U.S. government hand-outs while avoiding the difficult task of increasing their self-reliance, then they will not only begin to lose the respect of their neigh bors, but more significantly, their own self-respect. Should that happen, then history will judge these Compacts of Free Association as nothing more than an illegitimate fraud.