say in decisions

Soviets have a say in decisions

A strange crew of decision makers, including Russian diplomats, will decide when and perhaps if the three Micronesian nations are to re ceive the billions of dollars promised by the United States.

The governments of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau want to enter into their new associations with the US, which, for its part, is keen to get with the new arrangements.

Congress has already voted the first money to the islands, but none will be handed over until the Compact of Free Association takes effect.

And that’s where the unusual group of decision makers com es into the picture.

Normally, the US Congress votes to spend money and, normally, the administration does so, unless the president vetoes the appropriation Bill or otherwise blocks the money.

So far, there have been no roadblocks in Washington as far as the promised US$3 billion is concerned. The problems have arisen in Palau and in New York.

Justice Gibson, a mainlan der, sitting in the Supreme Court of Palau, has ruled that the republic did not vote to approve the Compact of Free Association. His decision was that the 72 per cent support for the compact in the most recent Palau referendum is insuffi cient.

He ruled that Palau’s con stitution clearly requires a 75 per cent margin a defeat for President Lazarus Salii and a victory for the plaintiff, Chief Ibedul Yutaka Gibbons.

Salii immediately appealed against the ruling to the apellate division of the nation’s supreme court. And like many island courts that lack a steady stream of business, Palau’s appellate division sits irregularly.

It meets when required and its members normally three are appointed by the chief justice.

Whoever hears the appeal, Washington observers point out that, even if Justice Gibson’s ruling is upheld, there is an other avenue for the pro-com pact forces.

The 75 per cent rule is written into the Palau constitu tion (July PIM, p 7) which could probably be amended to a lower figure by the compact’s supporters.

The Palau establishment has,

however, consistently avoided this in the past.

It is also not inconceivable that the government in Washington might decide, un ilaterally, that 72 per cent is enough of a majority to show that the Palauans on the whole are in favour of the compact.

And that’s where the Rus sians come back into the pic ture.

The view from Moscow is that the US is steadily throwing a ring of bases around the Soviets and sees the compact as a strategic device.

This makes the situation at the UN murky. While the UN Trusteeship Council has voted overwhelmingly for termination only the Russians disagreed the next step is up to the Security Council where the Russians have hinted strongly

that their veto may come into play.

But a security trusteeship has never been terminated before.

There are no clear precedents on procedure so that the US and its allies as well as the Russians may find themselves jockeying for position.

And since procedural ques tions are often determined by the views of the presiding offic er, the timing of any hearing will be vital.

During this month the Secur ity Council is chaired by the Soviet representative. Next month it rotates to the pro-west United Arab Emirates and then to the United Kingdom and then to the US itself.

The US, therefore, is quite likely to seek to delay any moves at least until after

September.

David North.