Cops And Robbers

Pacific Magazine: Implementation of the Compact has been slow in the FSM. Can you describe the situation?

Sebastian Anefal: There has been a lot of delay in implementation of the Compact. It was not really a surprise to us. We knew we'd need a transition period (from Compact one to two), but the United States denied this. It's like trying to jump from one side of a river to another with no bridge. If a transition period was allowed, it would have made life easier, particularly because in the FSM we have to deal with four state governments.

PM: How are U.S.-FSM relations panning out in the second Compact?

Anefal: The situation in Chuuk is a good example. We need to find ways to provide what's needed to dispensaries and schools, not just in Chuuk, but in all four states. We wanted to work in partnership with the U.S. to gradually get over the hurdles. But instead the U.S. fielded its own people without informing us and went into Chuuk to investigate (in late 2004). The investigation found empty classroom buildings, no textbooks, no desks, dispensaries without supplies. It's not a new story to us. These things have already been documented by the FSM and Micronesian Seminar (a Pohnpei-based Jesuit think tank). We're not trying to hide them. We want to change them.

We lodged a complaint with the U.S. Embassy (over the investigation). What kind of procedure are they following? Where is the provision in the Compact that allows one-handed action? We're a sovereign country and they should respect that.

Federated States of Micronesia’s Foreign Secretary Sebastian Anefal. Photo: Giff Johnson

In the Joint Economic Management Committee (JEMCO) meetings we stress the need for cooperation and partnership. But we're dealing with bureaucrats; they have no knowledge of the Compact, no knowledge of the negotiations because they didn't participate. We negotiated in full and good faith, but when it comes to implementation it's like we're dealing with strangers.

Everything the U.S. points to are problems that have been there since the beginning of the first Compact. I hope that over the next few months we can put this behind us and the U.S. will work closely with the FSM.

PM: What are the prospects for reform, particularly in Chuuk?

Anefal: A weakness in the FSM system is that under the Constitution, the FSM national government has no real authority to dictate to the states. We have to work with the states to be on the same wavelength we're on. We're working with the new governor in Chuuk. He's identified dispensaries that just appear on paper or are hardly providing services. He's already eliminated a number from the budget and taken people off the payroll. The new governor is very enthusiastic about working with the FSM. I'm sure we'll see progress in the short term.

PM: Given the enforcement role the U.S. is playing, can the FSM establish a collaborative relationship?

Anefal: There has to be a partnership on the Compact. Otherwise it won't work. JEMCO was proposed by the FSM because we saw that in the first Compact that even though there were consultations, the U.S. was not keen on regular consultations. We proposed having regular face-to-face consultations so the U.S. could find out from the horse's mouth what's working and not working; (we saw it helping) people work together under this unique arrangement. Not like now: It's so heavy-handed and the U.S. is using a one-way approach.

The Interior Department is treating us like the Feds treat California. But we're a small developing country with limited resources. We know we're dependent on U.S. taxpayers' money. We have a special relationship with the U.S. and we're grateful for that. But as a child, we have to learn to crawl before we walk. Right now, the U.S. is treating us as an adult, never mind all the steps in between. We've admitted our guilt. We're not trying to hide anything. We'd like to work with the U.S. to develop our skills, develop our capacity. But the U.S. approach is if we're not doing it right, there's no second chance. We're punished, or (the U.S. says) 'we'll come in and do it for you, whether you like it or not.'

PM: Would implementation be better if the U.S. established its Compact monitoring office here instead of Hawaii?

Anefal: That would be a much better way to deal with it. The Department of Interior has taken a 'cop and robber' approach. Swooping in unannounced, they want to catch us with a smoking gun. There are things we can rectify more effectively than if the U.S. does it from outside. Sometimes we can invite the U.S. to be the bad guy. But if the U.S. just goes in and does it, there can be a backlash and the problem can get worse.

The U.S. has no conceptual notion of how to handle things here. It's why some times it is so time consuming (to work through national, state and municipal levels in the FSM). But it's better to spend more time doing it rather than to bulldoze and then come out empty handed. We're encouraging the U.S. side to work closely with the national government to deal with the states, rather than them dealing directly with the states.

PM: How serious are the calls from some states for separation from the FSM?

Anefal: There are some cracks (in unity). But these could be mended. The cracks are coming about because of the worsening economic situation. In Chuuk, whether it's $1 million or $10 million that's mismanaged, it's still mismanagement. Their deficit is now $27 million. Total mismanagement puts cracks in the system and frustrates people.

But if we're not doing well collectively, how can we do well by ourselves? Separation is stupid. (The talk) is not facing up to reality. The Compact is the backbone of the FSM. If we split, one thing is certain. Relations with the U.S. will be severed, and without U.S. funding where will we go? And would the United States be amenable to deal with four separate entities?