Letters To The Editor
Letters To The Editor
|
Bible of South Pacific Gary Turner - ADVERTISEMENT -
Free association states The three Freely Associated States were referred to as United States former Pacific territories in the OEBush to sign compact details' which went on to say: "During the compact's 15-year term, extended by two years, the two countries (FSM & RMI) each received about US$1000 million in American funds in return for continuing United States military and foreign policy control of their affairs." The other article, OEMeeting US security standards', concludes again with the same mistake: "All three are former United States territories that have continued to accept some military and foreign policy restrictions as a condition of United States aid received by them." The concept of free association as a viable political status option is, of course, modelled after the political relationship that New Zealand had established in the mid-1960s with the Cook Islands and Niue. Its architect, the reknowned political science professor, John Davidson, served as the principal consultant to the Congress of Micronesia's Political Status Commission under the chairmanship of the late Palau President Lazarus Salii. But the Micronesian negotiators took it one step further by convincingly wresting from the United States the authority to control their own foreign affairs and international relations. Defense and security authority and responsibilities are the only major governmental powers specifically delegated to the United States Government to undertake. So it is incorrect if not misleading to refer to the three Freely Associated States as former US territories. And it is equally untrue to allege that the United States, under the free association relationship, controls foreign affairs policies of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau in exchange for the financial aid they receive. Victorio Uherbelau Urwin's appointment Erickson takes criticism of Urwin's appointment as Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum out of context, saying that it is "anti-Australianism" and "makes the job of reforming the secretariat and promoting good governance more difficult". Let me say from the outset that criticism of Urwin's appointment has not been about his credentials, qualifications and experience. We recognise his impressive CV and ability. The criticisms and questions about his appointment are more about Australia's perceived motivation in nominating him (despite the understanding' since 1971), and in the way Australia went about to force his appointment through. Indeed, the way Australia privately went about this, makes quiet a mockery of the good governance they preach in the region. Erickson is wrong to suggest that Urwin does not need to explain himself at the outset of his tenure. The Forum Secretary-General is a critical political leadership position, and anyone appointed needs to explain himself or herself, especially if the tradition has been thrown out to accommodate them. There are many more issues surrounding Australia's involvement in the region that can be discussed further. It has both advantages and weaknesses. But Australia's dominance economically and politically of the region must not mean usurping or undermining the views or priorities of the Pacific islands. Speaking out against particular Australian policies and practices is not anti-Australianism, it is democracy and good governance‹plain and simple! Stanley Simpson |
