“If the people of Chuuk decide to stand on their own, that is their choice, but their separation from the FSM will mean separation from the Compact agreements which are with the Federated States of Micronesia and not an entity called ‘Chuuk.’ – US Ambassadors to the FSM”
Part of the statements made during the public form in order to “educate” but not to “intimidate” the people of Chuuk before the upcoming referendum on secession from the FSM. I know that the United States is treading carefully as not to sound abusive or bullish. The Commission, days before the form, were already calling the forthcoming statements to be nothing more than “intimidation” complete with related signs and other symbolism to push this message of being bullied by the US.
My dear people of Chuuk: I want us to go into this great test of democracy and sovereignty without the shackles of intimidation nor the false pretense of passive victimization. Unfortunately we the people are caught in the middle of trying to decipher these messages in order to proudly participate and decide for ourselves what is it that we want. For one thing, and related to the quote from the ambassador: if we vote yes, we are out of the Compact of Free Association that currently exists between the US and the sovereign nation of FSM.
The presentation went on to highlight the inherent problems we will be facing in creating a new nation. Here’s one question that I want somebody to answer: if Chuuk votes itself out of the compact by a “yes” result, is Chuuk still obligated to honor the so called shared defense principal in which the US enjoys an exclusive/denial military rights to Chuuk’s sovereign territories? If so, how is that going to work since we are not legally bind to the sovereign nation of FSM which will continue to be party to the COFA? after the vote our connection to the compact treaties relies on whether or not we remain part of the FSM. If no, which means the US will continue to hold a new Chuuk nation to abide by providing for the share defense without anything else in return if we want to opt out of the share defense principle.
There is more to US military need for exclusive, uncompromising power in the region, history has shown us that reality. As the ambassador points out, these complicated animal called the Compact of Free Association, was born out of the unique circumstances of the Cold War. I am not so sure that the threats, however different, has ruled out the military need for power. But I could be wrong, as i am so quite often.
The Commission, on the other hand, should stop playing this passive victimization approach. My computer is misbehaving so I will have to continue this point tomorrow.
Dr. Vid Raatior
Dr. Vid Raatior is a proud Chuukese parent, educator, citizen blogger, and social entrepreneur living in the US.
Follow Me:
