Last week we published a memorandum from Mr. Jim Stovall, the leading legal expert on the Compact of Free Association (COFA) between the FSM and the United States. In that document entitled, “Compact Implications of Chuuk Secession,” Stovall listed eight (8) points explaining the impact of the COFA on Chuukese citizens if secession occurs.
The Chuuk Political Status Commission (CPSC) has not issued an official response to Mr. Jim Stovall’s fact sheet. But that has not stopped Mr. Tadasy Wainit, one of the major supporter of the Faichuk and now Chuuk secession movements who issued his own rebuttal to Stovall’s 8-point fact sheet. Wainit’s response was published on Facebook page and via emails.
We asked President Manny Mori for his administration’s response to Wainit’s rebuttal. His response was issued by the FSM Secretary of Justice and Attorney General, the Honorable April Dawn Skilling and Joses Gallen, the FSM Associate Attorney General. In their opening response, the FSM Department of Justice issued the foundation of the nation’s opposition of the Chuuk secession movement which is that they are in violation of the FSM Constitutional requirement as stated in Article XIII:
“[i]t is the solemn obligation of the national and state governments to uphold the provisions of this Constitution and to advance the principles of unity upon which this Constitution is founded.”
Below are Stovall’s 8 facts, Tadasy Wainit’s rebuttal, and the official FSM Department of Justice’s response:
(Stovall) FACT 1: “ The Compact will terminate automatically for Chuuk at the moment of secession from the FSM.”
(Wainit): Please be informed that secession is a political process and not a “date” on which the withdrawal of a state or a part of a Nation shall automatically take place upon the affirmative result of the plebiscite as you claimed but rather it is a long process which has a beginning and an ending through which shall begin with the affirmative result of a plebiscite in which the people of Chuuk would have affirmatively decided to withdraw and terminate their political status, affiliation and relationship with the FSM by their own God given free will of self-determination through a democratic process or plebiscite. The affirmative result of the plebiscite is the first step in the process.
FSM response: It is true that the first step in finding out whether the population of the State of Chuuk wish to seek secession from the FSM is by asking the question being put forth in the March 3, 2015, plebiscite. However, a positive response of the population on the plebiscite does not mean the State of Chuuk is seceding from the FSM. There are further legal steps that must be followed before secession becomes a reality, i.e., the FSM Constitution would need to be amended to remove the State of Chuuk from the territory of the FSM.
(Wainit): The second step in the process is the passing of legislation by the Chuuk State Legislature calling for the establishment of a Constitutional Convention to write the proposed New Constitution of the newly established Independent Nation of Chuuk.
FSM response: We disagree. The second step in the process on the road to secession would be to seek an amendment of Article I of the FSM Constitution removing the State of Chuuk from the territory of the FSM. The steps to amend the FSM Constitution are contained in Article XIV of the Constitution and in Title I of the FSM Code. This includes the drafting and acceptance of a proposed amendment through a constitutional convention, congressional act, or a popular initiative, plus a positive vote of 75% of the votes cast on the proposed constitutional amendment in 75% of the four states.
(Wainit): The third step in the process is the ESG (Education for Self-Government) to our people on the draft Constitution and its ratification, and …
FSM response: We disagree. The third step will not even legally occur unless the FSM Constitution is amended to allow for secession.
(Wainit): [T]he fourth step in the process is again the passing of legislation establishing our Negotiation Team to start talking with the United States, please keep in mind that at this juncture or critical time, Chuuk is still a part of the FSM as a state while it is now preparing and undertaking its foreign affairs with the outside world most especially with the United States for a smooth transition into a new Compact of Free Association with the United States in order to protect Chuuk’s invaluable relationship with the United State covering its Immigration Status and other benefits for its Chuuk citizens now living abroad in the United States.
FSM response: This is not correct. First, any steps by the State of Chuuk to form an independent government while it is part of the FSM would be unlawful because it would violate the FSM Constitution and the FSM Code establishing the authority of the FSM national government’s exclusive jurisdiction over foreign affairs, immigration, etc. See, FSM Constitution, Article X, Sections 2, 3, and 8. Second, the FSM national government would not stand by and allow the State of Chuuk to undermine the FSM government’s responsibilities and obligations under the FSM Constitution, the FSM Code, and its international treaties, conventions, and other legal agreements.
(Wainit): The fifth step in the process is the election of the new officials and officers of the new Government of the newly established Independent Nation of Chuuk, and
FSM response: See the FSM response to the fourth step, above. In addition, these steps may only legally occur if and when the FSM Constitution is amended to allow for secession.
(Wainit): [T]he sixth and final step in the process is the effective date of Independence for the New Nation of Chuuk and its separation from the FSM.
FSM response: See the FSM responses above.
(Wainit): So as you can see, secession is not an automatic end of the state of Chuuk with the FSM. As I said, it may take several years to go through this process to achieve total and complete independence and separation from the FSM and those Chuuk officials involved in the process must make sure that everything is done right gradually toward the end of the secession process, and it is not true that once secession is passed in the plebiscite, ‘the Compact will terminate automatically for Chuuk,” and therefore, Fact No. 1 is FALSE.
FSM response: Mr. Wainit misconstrues the points of James Stovall. The Compact will indeed terminate automatically for Chuuk following secession for the reasons stated by Mr. Stovall, who by the way is the leading expert on the FSM Compact of Free Association. The vote on March 3rd by the State of Chuuk asking whether the population wants to secede is merely a question. A positive vote just answers the question – it does not mean that the State of Chuuk can lawfully secede thereafter without following the legal pathway leading to an amendment of the FSM Constitution. It is not unconstitutional to ask a question – in fact, freedom of speech is guaranteed in the FSM Constitution. Without asking the question, how else could anyone seek to amend the FSM Constitution without knowing whether anyone wanted to do so?
(Wainit): Furthermore, the State of Chuuk shall continue to function as a state in the FSM despite the fact that its future political status, not its present political status, has already been decided if it were to be passed and shall continue to receive its Compact funding through the FSM, and remain with the rest of the FSM States during the remainder of its secession process which may last for 3 to 5 years or even up to the end of the FSM Compact II and shall continue to be entitled to receiving all Compact II funding and all other existing Compact benefits including Immigration Status with the United States until it shall be smoothly transiting into its own new Compact of Free Association with the United States with all current and newly negotiated Compact benefits on a one-to-one relationship of its own with the United States.
FSM response: First, if the State of Chuuk secedes, whether or if the State of Chuuk is entitled to any Compact funds held in trust by the FSM government (of which the State of Chuuk would no longer be a part) will be a question to be determined by the FSM national government, not by an independent State of Chuuk. Second, again, the FSM national government is not going to stand idle, continuing to support the State of Chuuk through FSM national funding if the State of Chuuk does not follow the legal pathway amending the Constitution to allow for secession. If the State of Chuuk legally secedes, a transitional process would need to be worked out between the two governments, i.e., the FSM national government and the new Republic. This would not be an easy or quick process, involving not only funding, but also immigration issues, status of former Chuukese citizens within and without the FSM, division of boundaries, etc.
Perhaps a better question to be asked is that while all this time is being spent on separating Chuuk from the FSM, what is happening to the Chuukese people and to the nation of the FSM? Are we really better off spending time dividing instead of using the same time and effort to build our nation and solve our problems?
(Stovall) FACT 2: “Compact Funding to former Chuuk State would not transfer to the Republic of Chuuk. This would be an automatic consequence of the fact that the Republic of Chuuk is not a party to the Compact. Any changes to the Compact funding structure or amount would require US Congress legislation.”
(Wainit): Please be informed that even with the affirmative result of the Chuuk Plebiscite in March, 2015, the State of Chuuk shall continue and remain as still one of the four (4) States in the FSM and shall have entitlement to all Compact funding as usual just like the other sister states, there is no effect whatsoever of the affirmative result from the Plebiscite, and therefore, FACT NO. 2 is FALSE.
FSM response: The State of Chuuk will continue to be a state as long as the FSM Constitution is not amended to allow for secession. However, Mr. Stovall is absolutely correct that if legal secession actually occurs, the new Republic will not be entitled to FSM Compact funding because the new Republic will not be a state of the FSM.
(Stovall) FACT 3: “US Federal Programs in Chuuk pursuant to the Compact would be withdrawn.”
(Wainit): We have to remember that until all the legal formalities and legal steps through the political process have been executed and finalized, secession for Chuuk is not complete and materialized until at the end of the process and Chuuk shall still be a part of the FSM and therefore shall continue to be treated as such just like the other three States and shall receive all benefits and bear its share of financial and political obligations to the FSM. And therefore, FACT NO. 3 is FALSE.
FSM response: In addition to the FSM responses above, the State of Chuuk will not be able to form its own government while it is still an FSM state. It cannot simply phase out the FSM government over time without a change to the FSM Constitution first. If successful, a transitional plan would then need to be developed and agreed to by the FSM national government and the Republic. Since secession is not currently allowed under the FSM Constitution, any action to unlawfully secede by the State of Chuuk could result in economic and legal sanctions.
(Stovall) FACT 4: “Compact Immigration status of Chuuk citizens in the U.S. would terminate automatically upon secession.”
(Wainit): Yes, you are right, Compact Immigration status of Chuuk citizens in the U.S. would terminate not automatically upon approval of secession by the people in the plebiscite, but on the effective date upon which the secession process shall have been completed and Independence of the new Nation of Chuuk shall have been formally and legally effective as the date on which Chuuk shall exit and terminate its political status as a state in the FSM.
FSM response: The plebiscite results, if positive, do not equate to secession – only a change in the FSM Constitution will legally provide for the State of Chuuk to secede from the FSM. The Compact immigration status of FSM citizens from Chuuk would change. How the US will treat Chuukese citizens who are no longer FSM citizens will have to be determined by the US after a legal determination by the US is made.
(Wainit): That is why Chuuk needs a transition period of several years through which Chuuk can gracefully negotiate with the United States its own Compact through which Immigration status of Chuuk citizens living in the United States shall not be abruptly terminated but gracefully and smoothly transit from one Compact to the next Compact.
FSM response: The response by Mr. Wainit assumes that a new Compact with the US is possible and will be approved by the US Congress. It is important to note, however, that a financial assistance agreement under the Compact between the US and Palau signed in 2010 and introduced to the US Congress has still not been approved by the US Congress although Palau has an established relationship with the US, unlike the new Republic. A new Compact with the US is not a guarantee, nor are the favorable terms currently in the FSM Compact with the US such as those involving immigration, employment, and school attendance, guaranteed to remain the same. It is also important to note that the majority of FSM citizens currently being deported by the US back to the FSM are Chuukese. This most certainly will factor in to any future Compact negotiations with the US should they occur.
(Wainit): Can you imagine how devastating such a problem would have been to our people if that would happen? No, the Immigration status of our Chuuk citizens living in the United States shall not be automatically terminated upon the affirmative result of the plebiscite, and therefore, FACT NO 4 is FALSE.
FSM response: Mr. Wainit misconstrues what Mr. Stovall stated. Mr. Stovall stated that the immigration status of Chuukese citizens living in the US would terminate upon secession under the Compact (emphasis added), not immediately following the results of the plebiscite.
(Stovall): FACT 5: “Title Three of the Compact, delegation of Security and Defense Rights to the U.S. would no longer apply in the territory of the new Republic of Chuuk.”
(Wainit): Again, Please be informed that until Chuuk has officially and formally withdrawn and terminated its existing political status with the FSM through legal means, not just through a show of hands through a plebiscite, but through a formal declaration of Independence with an effective date in its Constitution or other legal means, Chuuk shall remain a part of the FSM, and all Security and Defense Rights delegated to the United States through the Compact with the FSM shall remain in effect for Chuuk until Chuuk has its own Compact with the U.S which shall also spell out the delegation of Security and Defense Rights to the United States which is so vital to the United States for its own military power and defense and its Government shall never take a chance to allow the newly Independent Nation of Chuuk to not have such Security and Defense Rights given to the United States. and therefore, again, FACT No. 5 is FALSE.
FSM response: Mr. Wainit again misconstrues what Mr. Stovall wrote – i.e., the Compact between the FSM and the US applies to the FSM and its citizens. Once and if the State of Chuuk legally secedes from the FSM, the Compact terms would no longer apply to the State of Chuuk as it would no longer be part of the FSM. The US obligations under Title III of the Compact runs with the Compact.
(Stovall): FACT 6: “Chuuk’s entitlement, if any, to assets of the Compact Trust Fund would be difficult and time-consuming to quantify.”
(Wainit): You’ve got to be kidding! Are you talking about Rocket Science here which no Chuukese may be capable of understanding not to mention calculating?
FSM response: Mr. Stovall’s response is absolutely correct. Many factors would be involved in making a legal determination of state entitlement to the assets of the Compact Trust Fund, including whether or not the legal pathway to secession, i.e., changing the FSM Constitution to allow for secession, is followed. Sarcasm by Mr. Wainit does not change the underlying complexities of this issue.
(Wainit): Becoming an Independent nation, Chuuk would not do it over night, the transition for Chuuk from being a state with the FSM to becoming an Independent nation has to go through the legal process which I stated above which may take anywhere from 3 to 5 years or even up to the end of Compact II, and even if the question were to be affirmatively decided during the up-coming plebiscite, Chuuk is still a part of the FSM and shall continue to be entitled to all Compact funding including its allocation of the Trust Fund Assets until the last day on which Chuuk shall officially terminate its political status and relationship with the FSM, and again, therefore, FACT NO. 6 is FALSE.
FSM response: These arguments presented by Mr. Wainit against Mr. Stovall’s facts, and the FSM responses, are already addressed in Facts 1, 2, and 3, above.
(Stovall): FACT 7: “A variety of benefits extended to FSM not in the Compact but in US Public Law 108-188 (The Amended Compact Act) would no longer be extended to Chuuk.”
(Wainit): Let it be clear that even if the affirmative result of the plebiscite were to be made public in March of this year, the fact remains that Chuuk is still a state in the FSM, nothing shall change, and Chuuk shall continue to be entitled to all financial assistance benefits including things IDF, EDA, USDA, RUS, Small Business Administration Assistance and all others, just like the other three (3) states, and therefore, FACT No. 7 is FALSE.
FSM response: Mr. Stovall’s response is absolutely correct. If the State of Chuuk ultimately secedes through a legal process under the FSM Constitution, the current financial benefits (federal program services) it enjoys under the Amended Compact Act would not be available to the Republic, as the State of Chuuk would no longer by part of the FSM. If the State of Chuuk fails to address secession in a legal manner, as noted above, economic and legal sanctions could be imposed that would hinder the current financial assistance provided to the State of Chuuk.
(Stovall): FACT 8: “ Negotiations by a Republic of Chuuk for a separate relationship with the United States and with other countries would be time-consuming, based on past experience.”
(Wainit): It is true that all negotiations take time because they are meant to produce the best possible arrangements which are vital and necessary as the results of carefully thought out and mediated “Give and Take” Agreements between two sovereign nations to meet the vital needs of their people, in this case, it would be the well and best thought out needs of the people of Chuuk, and the people of the United States of America.
FSM response: The US has a long and integrated relationship with the FSM states from the initial Trust Territory days up to now. Much of that relationship turns on the security needs in the region. The FSM has been regionally recognized and held up as an example in the Pacific for its law enforcement efforts and contributions to regional security. It would be naïve to believe that this relationship is not being affected by the current movement in the State of Chuuk to secede. It has taken years for the FSM to achieve its current status. Given all the factors mentioned in the responses above, how much time will it take for the new Republic to achieve a similar status – or will it ever achieve it on its own? The State of Chuuk benefits from the combined efforts of all the states working together as a unified nation. The people of the State of Chuuk must carefully consider this positive aspect of being a member state of the FSM before they decide to throw it aside. All the arguments of Mr. Wainit are based upon an unsupported belief that a new and equally beneficial arrangement will be developed with the US or other regional and international partners.
(Wainit): We are talking about not so much the wellbeing of our present generation but the future of our future generations and the future of our progeny and their future is our most important concern and undertaking right now, and that is why we want to make use of the remaining life of this Compact II as our transition period to give Chuuk ample time and the necessary time table that it needs to carefully shape and prepare our future to meet the needs of our people and leave our future generations a legacy of prosperity, freedom and happiness to be enjoyed by all generations in the future and forever. 2017 is just a tentative date for a referendum on a draft constitution for the newly established Independent Nation of Chuuk, if the result of the plebiscite were to be affirmative, but the time table can be several years from today, and therefore, FACT No.8 is not impossible, may be achievable within a shorter period of time.
FSM response: the current secession movement in Chuuk to break away from the FSM is spending much time and money. Why throw the baby out with the bath water? Why not, instead, spend Chuuk’s much-needed resources on fixing the problems that currently exist in Chuuk starting with Chuuk’s internal issues that preclude development such as the lack of state land, wasted resources (as noted in the recent Public Auditor’s Report), transparency in financial dealings, and the reforms promised when the FSM national government bailed Chuuk out of its financial difficulties in 2007 and before. Not once has the Chuuk State Political Commission called on the President of this nation to discuss its issues or officially inform the President of its intent to seek secession. Over and over again through recent discussions with Chuukese citizens in the US and within the FSM, the question has been raised “pwata atapwanapwan” (what’s the rush) and “sipwe poraus” (let’s talk). Isn’t talking the Chuukese way – the Micronesian way? Good questions that should be answered!
(Wainit): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify your misunderstandings in the most crucial and important political endeavor for Chuuk to move ahead instead of continuing to remain with the status quo which has been responsible for Chuuk’s loss of great opportunities to move ahead to attain prosperity, economically, socially, and politically during the past 28 years now.
- Just take a good look at the rate or exodus of our people leaving Chuuk to find a better life abroad and sooner or later our beautiful islands would be empty and inhabited with only the disabled remaining behind if nothing can be done to avert the onslaught of exodus of our people leaving our islands.
- There is no place like home but home now is second best because of our debilitated social and economic conditions in Chuuk right now.
- It is now or never that Chuuk should take a bold stance to find the right path to avert depletion of our populations by bringing back our people back home.
- Independence for Chuuk is the only solution and option viable to bring about positive economic and social stability and prosperity to our people back home in the near future, and forever.
FSM response to all of the above final bulleted points: It is important to look historically at secession movements throughout the world. Such movements not always been successful or without great hardship, and in many cases harm to people on both sides of the equation have occurred. Is this really what the people of the State of Chuuk desire for themselves, their families, their future generations, and their fellow FSM friends and relatives?
If this movement has been positive in any way, it is that now people are talking and speaking up about their needs, their fears, and their desires for responsible government at all levels. Why not use the momentum of speaking up and talking to one another as a momentum to solve our current problems and realize the dreams of our founding fathers, not only by Chuuk but by all of us who ratified the Constitution, to “…affirm our common wish to live together in peace and harmony, to preserve the heritage of the past, and to protect the promise of the future.”
Respectfully submitted,
April Dawn M. Skilling
Secretary of Justice
FSM Department of Justice
Joses R. Gallen
Assistant Attorney General
FSM Department of Justice
Dr. Vid Raatior
Dr. Vid Raatior is a proud Chuukese parent, educator, citizen blogger, and social entrepreneur living in the US.
Follow Me:
Just a question. All of this from the Chuuk government perspective is solely based on whether they can establish a new constitution with the US government. Is there any inclination that the US government is interested in creating a compact, especially one that is similar to that which it has with the FSM, in relation to the immigration status that it provides?
Kaselelehlia maing Mr Patrick Gorong:
I, too, wish to share my gut’s reaction on what has recently been transpired above between the three parties representing CPSC, Dept of Justice and Mr. Jim Stoval, COFA counselor and expert. I haven’t given much detail review yet as a citizen just trying to make some sense out of this proposed secession by Chuuk State, but I quickly went through the entire presentation and found no where that it mentioned the multiple of red tapes that Chuuk State has to go through in order to access the fees collected from the FSM 200EEZ which the CPSC told the students at UH-Hilo as basis or reasons for this secession for Chuuk. It seems the entire issue of secession has shifted to the Compact and no longer the issue of fees collected from the FSM 200EEZ, and I stand to be corrected in this regard.
As for your question, I believed Mr. Wainit indicated as one of their step in the process that Chuuk legislature would have to create a commission, should the plebiscite achieve affirmative results to do a Constitutional Convention for Chuuk, and once that constitution help in creating the Nation of Chuuk then they would negotiate their own Compact with the United States.
Just off the top of my head here, it appears that this phrase “affirmative results of the plebiscite” confuses or misconstrues by all parties in their responses and rebuttals, although it’s clear that Mr. Stovall referred primarily to the notion of an approved secession, then everything he indicated or cited would take place for Chuuk State. AG referred to the new Chuuk as Republic of Chuuk, while Wainit used “Nation of Chuuk:… yet earlier during the preliminary hearings, CPIC used People’s Republic of Chuuk.
And speaking of inconsistencies, it appears that there is still significant legal questions toward all responses and rebuttal by all parties: For instance,
a) There is no clarification as to who would tally the results of the plebiscite once the ballot boxes are counted if just the tally committee of the election or not;
b) Waiting period of the counted results or unofficial results to allow for anyone or any party to contest; and
c) The result would then be transmitted to the Governor who would then prepare the package to be transmitted to the State Legislature to endorse and then the final result be transmitted to the President who would in turn transmit it to Congress for their deliberation, review and final action. I assume this is what Chuuk State would have to do in handling the results of their plebiscite when and if they are still part of the Federation.
While the State Legislature and Governor of Chuuk transmit the result to the National Government, they would then enact the legislation for the Chuuk Constitution Convention. If one refer back to the debate above, there so much confusion about Chuuk State handling its own affairs, including declaring their own independence without the involvement of the national government, much less the National Congress who has the authority to declare Chuuk Constitution as viable and legitimate to wage independence for Chuuk.
Again the confusion over the “affirmative results of plebiscite” which technically means “YES”, but only in paper, but legally has no bearing, but direction for the Governor and the State Legislature to act legally and immediately transmit the results to the President to be acknowledged. Perhaps it also let CPIC to revoke all of Mr. Stovall’s stated facts, and then again, whatever happened to the red tapes and the FSM 200 EEZ? At best, I think Chuukese are being misled and misinformed regarding that they cited as the future for the future generation of Chuuk.
As a Chuuk Status Commissioner and the current Chuuk State Attorney General, I thank the FSM Attorney General, Ms Skilling, and Assistant Attorney General, Mr Gallen for finally coming out with the National Government’s legal position on the Chuuk Secession question.
I also want to thank Mr Tadashy Wainit for his responses to the Points by Mr Stovall. Mr Wainit is one of the very informed private Chuukese citizens, including on the Chuuk Secession Movement. Contrary to what some misinformed posters on this Forum accused him of doing, Mr Wainit was not convicted by the FSM Supreme Court for misuse of government funds like those other defendants as former FSM Speaker, Mr Jack Fritz and his congressional colleagues. Rather, Mr Wainit was convicted for violating the election law, by “threatening or coercing people to vote certain ways.”
I apologize for the Commission and for Chuuk State for not being able to frame their official responses AT THIS POINT to both Mr Stovall’s Points and the legal theories advanced by the FSM attorneys general.
Earlier in the Chuuk Secession Movement, I posted (on MicronesiaForum) unofficial transcripts of a public hearing on Uman middle of 2014, where the question of constitutionality of Chuuk’s desire to secede from the FSM was publicly raised. At that time, I stated that I, as current Chuuk AG, do not see the point of rendering an opinion on the question of Secession “because the final arbiter of the question will be FSM Supreme Court.” I knew that the Chuuk Status Commission wants secession; (they disagreed during internal Commission debate about what the FSM Constitution says on Chuuk’s secession); even now that the FSM attorneys have spelled out the FSM legal position on the question, the Commission still insists the FSM Constitution does not “expressly forbid secession.” The present situation now suggests the question might lead to the FSM Supreme Court.
In earlier January, 2015, during a Hilo hearing, I presented an illustration Timeline on what courses of actions will be needed by Chuuk State after the March 2015 Plebiscite if the vote turns out affirmative.
I explained three things:
1. Chuuk will need to establish a Constitutional Convention to draft a Constitution for an Independent Chuuk; meantime
2. Chuuk will need to sit down and deal with the FSM, negotiating what could be negotiated and litigating what requires litigation; meantime,
3. Chuuk will also need to sit down and talk with the US on what need to be revised in the existing FSM-US Amended Compact to chart out what a Chuuk-US Compact may include (so that when provisions of the FSM-US Compact no longer apply to Chuuk upon secession, those revised provisions will come into play, like for example those provisions or points raised by Mr Jim Stovall, i.e. immigration, pell grants, other programs and entitlements).
I am hoping that the Chuuk Commission can find time soon to sit with the state’s leaders and map out strategies on how to respond and resolve some of the issues now put forth by both the FSM attorneys and the FSM Embassy attorney.
I am afraid that with the time coming down to the last minutes in the last quarter for President Mori’s and Attorney General Skilling’s Administration, they may not be able to enjoy the fruit of their passionate opposition to Chuuk Secession. The work now seems like it will take up the next eight years or two full term of the next FSM President or Administration.
We hope a lot of us are still around to help out, one way or another.
Uncle Sabino, last month I had emailed you regarding the Immigration Status for myself (FSM Citizen) and my family (husband and kids- U.S. Citizen) and you had stated that I should just go ahead with my life here in the U. S. because you had already reached out to U. S. Embassy on that matter. In this post, the date is February 8, 2015, and you are saying that there has been no negotiations with the U. S. Embassy.
First, why in hell are we still hearing from Tadasi Wainit…aka James Bond..isn’t he one of those local chuukese convicted of fraud, bribery and abused of Compact Funds, along with jack fritz- the CPSC legal counsel.??
Second, all his ( Tadasi ) points were all lined up along with the CPSC’s false-hope, risky-assumptions and not-too-certain-crazy-ideas..
Third, nothing but middle pointing fingers to the FSM national fovernment…instead of pointing that middle fingers back at them-Chuuk politicians ( past & present )
Tadasi said; Chuuk needs to move ahead instead of continuing to remain with the ” status quo” which has been responsible for chuuk’s loss of opportunities.” Are you joking? The National Gov’t bailed us out from our own mess, 2007..!
Concern chuukese, please don’t fall for all these craziness..they’re just desperate for more money to continue f*** around with…
A ROC will never developed unless chuukese leaders change their greedy attitudes..!!
Soo, Tadasi, we got you this time…!
I quote, “I am hoping that the Chuuk Commission can find time soon to sit with the state’s leaders and map out strategies on how to respond and resolve some of the issues now put forth by both the FSM attorneys and the FSM Embassy attorney.”
I don’t think there’s enough time left for planning out strategies to escape those consequences. Mr. Vid came up with all the consequences long ago and you and the commission ignores because you thought those consequences raised came from a “nobody”. Now that you see it from a “somebody,” you and the commissioners on the commission are panicking because they’re real and that you are out of time to try and escape them.
I guess Mr. Wainit needs to stay away from polling places and campaigns or we might be having cases of “Coercing and threats to make people vote a certain way”.
Sabino,
Tadasi was an ex-con…no matter what ..along with your CPSC lawyer- jack fritz..!!
Crime is Crime.!!!
Are you out of your mind.?? That’s why your idea of seceding from the federation is a joke because you in love with ex convicts.!!
It’s not the FSM, it’s not the fisheries license who causes the problem in Chuuk, it you and them ( politicians).. You guys are Firiokich..soo you think a new Rebuplic of Chuuk will stop you guys from being Firiokich.??? No f**kn waay.. It gonna be worst and Chuuk will eventually burn in hell..!!
It’s clearly obvious that we’re having discomforts about Chuuk seceding from the FSM. The CPSC should be guilty for misleading their own people by inaccuracy and exaggeration in order to receive a sense of legitimacy.
There are three things that cannot be hidden, the sun, the moon, and the truth. Everything we hear is an opinion, not fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not fact. Now the truth is revealed – it’s also unconstitutional. I applaud the effort the commissioners have done on our behalf to seek Chuuk Independence but give us the truth of why and how to secede – Remember -fact.
Ika pue si mochen change, iwe epwe fis change from within.
It’s only Him and His Word that can bring about change.
Let’s do our duty with truthfulness and respect.
Who pick James Bond to give ideas, he will not give beneficial ideas but ideas that will be good for himself and his party.
Amen.!!!
To answer you Q;
It’s the CPSC and local politicians…
They picked many of the ex-cons…to support them…
Including Bantinus Suzuki aka first chuukese porn star..
Use mwass ekkewer..!
Pwan Mr. Taxi Womw himself is one PORN STAR! hahahaha Ennetin sise iing oh mwar. Meni ra fen mochen sipwe ne fen reveal some hidden truths about each individuals won ena commission.
I knew all along that the state of chuuk can not negotiate any treaty etc with any foreign nation if the pleblicite become affirmative without first negotiate to ammend the FSM Constitution with the National government to legally seceeded from FSM. It would be illegal to negotiate with any foreign nation at the back of the National government. What the Chuuk Independent Movement Commission thought they could do that at the expense of the FSM goernment. That really shows their true color, “A bunch of crooks”. They thiought they could brain wash the Chuukese back home and expect to do the same with FSM government.
Met wisen Tadasy Wainit ? Esapw I emon mi found guilty of corruption? Esapw I emon mi nouni ngawei monien Chuuk?
Let us be very clear on where we are in the Secession debate at this very moment. Chuuk DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE FSM LEGAL POSITIONS AGAINST SECESSION presented on the Internet by the FSM Attorney General, which President Mori and his staff are now going around in Chuuk waving to the Chuukese people that the FSM Constitution “needs to be amended first to allow Chuuk’s secession from the FSM.” We (Chuuk State leaders) have said we reserve the right to present our legal position when we feel is useful and will fight the issue in court whenever we are required to, but for now, let’s ask ourselves this:
1. What part of the FSM Constitution does it prohibit a state’s secession from the FSM?
2. The FSM AG and other attorneys like Saram Chuuk on this Forum have also repeatedly claimed there needs to be an amendment to the FSM Constitution before Chuuk can secede. What specific part of the FSM Constitution are they talking about? There is no mention of Chuuk anywhere in the FSM Constitution, (except in the Transition Provision,
Art XV Sect 6) which does not have any support for the claim for amendment.
The Provision which creates the FSM Congress (i.e. Art IX Sect 8 for example) does not mention Chuuk’s name in the composition of the Congress, only that the states will have an at-large senator and representatives, the latter based on population calculation. Even if Chuuk secedes from the FSM, that specific section or article does not need to be amended!
The General Provision (Art XIII Sect 3) quoted by the FSM AG (imposing solemn obligations on the states’ to uphold FSM Unity) is not a self-executing provision that imposes any enforceable right against the states, other than a nationalistic statement of policy which the framers from Palau and the Marshalls obviously did not find very enamoring.
Article I Sect 1 of the FSM Constitution directs that “the districts which ratified the Constitution, (including Chuuk)” does not prohibit secession, but specifies the territorial boundary for the FSM. Chuuk has already stated that if it secedes, it will establish its boundaries, and Section 2 of that same Article provides for equidistance of boundaries between sovereign entities. In other words, if Chuuk secedes, a constitutional amendment to this Article is not necessary, because the new boundaries will be established by law between the separate entities!!
From Chuuk’s point of view so far, the FSM AG is wrong in advising the FSM Government that a constitutional amendment is required to effectuate Chuuk’s inevitable Secession.
3. Chuuk also does not think FSM President Mori is right in opposing Chuuk’s Secession Movement based on his presidential authority under Article X Sect 2(b) to conduct foreign affairs. Chuuk’s secession, which is not foreign in nature, (see Art III Sect 1), is not foreign affairs, but an internal FSM issue. If secession is not prohibited in the FSM Constitution and not delegated to the National Government to regulate, then it must be one of those powers reserved to the states as the ultimate source of sovereignty. The FSM Supreme Court has already established this concept of reserved powers to the states. Edwards v. Pohnpei, 3 FSM Intrm. 350 (Pon. 1988). Therefore FSM President Mori’s direct presidential opposition to the Chuuk Secession Movement at this time is an undue interference in a purely Chuuk State local matter. (But as polite Chuukese, we will let him blow his steam before we resume the task).
Yir, the bottom line for Chuuk is this: Chuuk considers secession both (1) as an expression of its right to self-preservation in light of the schedule 2023 fiscal disaster; and (2) as an expression of its basic sovereignty. Chuuk does not see a promising alternative to remain with the FSM given the fact that the FSM Constitution does not affirmatively obligate the National Government to bail the states out with some of its excess financial resources from the fishing license fees. If the FSM is not making financial commitments or concessions to Chuuk to alleviate the impacts of 2023, then please let Chuuk be free to take care of itself! Chuuk understands it has to negotiate on its own with the US for a separate Compact at least on the basic terms as those of the existing US FSM Compact. With no definite constitutional ban on secession, Chuuk views the FSM Government’s opposition as very strange.
Mwa meitei ka jofona om ke mak ese or ion ejiwen nukukemi ekena nouwiz mi sona mwaken ngeni aramas sia kan beno ren ami kena kapas pwe kapas ena ouwa ngeni chon chuuk nge non monomonun netipemi firio kijikij …no body believe wht u say cuz u and ur staff are sonakij……hahaha
With all due respect to you and every one of your followers, President Mori have every right to interfere, his the president, our father of chuuk, and the voice of those who cant be heard!
Sabino,
Tirou wom…
On a scale of 5- 10, how do you grade/assest or evaluate our Chuuk economy as of today,2-17-15.?
To respond to your #3 concern,
You said, President Mori has no right to interfere in this movement because it’s a state but not national issue.??
Well, let me elaborate my own view regarding this movement and # 3.
1860, Abraham Lincoln fought to unite the Union during the bloody American Civil War..
November 2014, David Cameron- British Prime Minister fought to keep Scotland from separating from the UK..
Therefore, I do believe our POTFSM has the right to interfere and stop this movement..!
We-chuukese must use these two (2) powerful/rich nations as good examples..the US and The UK..
Because they believe that; “united we stand strong, separated we fall weak.”
Let’s keep the four stars and fix our internal differences..!
Thank you.!