The State of the Federated States
A Chance To Do Better
Original Compact Negotiator Reflects On 55 Years With America
 |
|
|
These days Amaraich, who turned 70 in August, spends most of his time refereeing land and money disputes in the courtroom. But in another life, from the early 1970s until the mid-1980s, he was chief negotiator of the first Compact of Free Association, which ended more than 40 years of direct United States rule under a United Nations Trusteeship agreement, setting the FSM on the road to political, if not economic, independence.
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Amaraich’s reflections about the expectations of the first Compact, the special nature of the FSM’s ties with America and how the FSM could do better offer useful messages for leaders, both in his nation and the United States.
Politically, the first Compact was a success, because the FSM has attained its political independence, he says. “The idea [free association] was a good one. No one has regretted independence in free association with the U.S.”
“No one is saying that after 15 years, the economy is up to the level that is needed,” he acknowledges. “Some feel great disappointment that nothing happened [economically]. But it’s true nothing happened.”
Complete economic independence isn’t a rational goal for the FSM, Amarich says, adding that, even with a new 20-year funding package in Compact Two, the FSM won’t achieve economic independence. The goal should be to improve the living standard for ordinary people by combining international donor aid with increased use of local resources, he says.
Still, on the development front, “There is a great deal of room for improvement,” he says. “I hope that in 15 years we learned from it. The next 20 years we must do better.”
A serious roadblock to development in the FSM are people’s attitudes about government. “The attitude of people—‘it’s the government’s not mine’—has to be changed,” he says. “The government and the people must come together.”
In fact, he argues that the “negative attitude toward government has been created by the government itself.” The goal of government-community partnerships in development is a critical missing ingredient in the FSM, he says.
Amaraich extended this train of thought to a public swearing-in ceremony in early October when he exhorted the audience to pay heed to the words of the FSM national anthem: “We all work together with heart, voice and hands.”
“We don’t always do this, even when things are in our hands,” he said at the ceremony, adding as a reminder: “The FSM Constitution starts with the word ‘We.’” He suggested that, without violating the separation of powers doctrine, the three branches of government could find many ways to work together in order to develop a “new generation of leaders.”
Amaraich says that the FSM can do more with what it has. “We’re doing less than we should be doing,” he says. “We should recognize this and improve.”
He believes that many American leaders, relatively new to U.S.-Micronesia relations, do not appreciate the depth of the special relationship between Washington and the Islands, which was born through a special understanding that, by mutual agreement, allowed Micronesia to end its trusteeship status in favor of political independence, in close association with the U.S.
During the early negotiations, in the 1970s and early 1980s, the most important issue for the U.S. was defense and security in the region. U.S. control of the area’s defense was readily agreed to by the FSM and, in exchange, the U.S. agreed to free entry of Micronesians to the U.S. for education, training and employment —which tacitly recognized the U.S. government’s failure to develop adequate educational institutions or a viable economy in the Trust Territory during its 40 years of administration.
These are the two most significant underpinnings of the Compact relationship—defense and free migration —and Amaraich is saddened (angered might be too strong a word to describe his generally restrained manner) by what he sees as an unfair American approach to the current Compact negotiations. “The U.S. wants to reopen immigration and not Title Three (defense) of the Compact,” he says. “It’s taking unfair advantage of the mutual respect embodied in the agreement.”
The U.S.-FSM relationship is “really special,” he says. It’s unfortunate, however, that many—perhaps most—of those who made the early U.S. commitment to Micronesia are gone, so there’s little continuity of understanding among American government leaders. This has led to the magnification of immigration concerns beyond reason. “In isolated instances, where FSM citizens make the news, there is a right to be concerned,” Amaraich says of FSM nationals living in the U.S. “But I’m surprised this has been taken by the U.S. as a major migration problem compared to other countries. The number of FSM citizens is very small.”
Still, despite the hiccup over immigration, “Micronesians should be proud of the relationship with the U.S.,” Amaraich says. “We still need outside help and we need to maintain good relations with the U.S.”
His advice to the American government? “Don’t just pick on us; help us to do better.”
