Political Reviews Micronesia in Review: Issues and Events, 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 michael lujan bevacqua, landisang l kotaro, monica c labriola, clement yow mulalap Polynesia in Review: Issues and Events, 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 peter clegg, lorenz gonschor, margaret mutu, christina newport, steven ratuva, forrest wade young The Contemporary Pacic, Volume 29, Number 1, 93–188 © 2017 by University of Hawai‘i Press 93 Micronesia in Review: Issues and Events, 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 Reviews of the Commonwealth of the Yosiwo P George, and the members of Northern Mariana Islands, Kiribati, the Nineteenth Congress of the Feder- and Nauru are not included in this ated States of Micronesia, the presi- issue. dent delivered an inaugural address that blamed many of the federation’s Federated States problems on “the intricacies of tiered of Micronesia governments where there are Munici- The period covered by this review was pal, State, and National jurisdictions one of reckoning for the long-term all vying to serve the same constitu- sustainability of the Federated States ents, but often tripping over each of Micronesia (FSM) as a political and other because of unclear delineation economic entity. The FSM engaged in of powers, coupled with political a renewed effort to stimulate economic ambitions of three levels of legislative development, appreciate the fragile bodies.” He also noted that the FSM natural ecosystems long enjoyed and was beset by difficulties stemming safeguarded by the people of the FSM, from “levels of disagreement between and reexamine the desirability of what our country and other countries and is perhaps the country’s most conse- international organizations whose quential bilateral relationship. As the interests in our affairs are not always scheduled termination of the major compatible with our own.” Christian financial provisions of the amended warned his audience that, in the fed- Compact of Free Association (cofa) eration’s long march toward self-gov- between the FSM and the United ernment, “one significant road block States nears, the FSM’s national and that stands out for us is our inability state governments—as well as the to yet wean ourselves from paternal general populaces they serve—grap- relationships” (fsmpio 2015). pled with the purpose, promise, and President Christian’s remarks car- predicaments of the federation and ried particular resonance in light of strove, in various ways, to establish a the attendees at the joint inauguration solid foundation for a federation that ceremony, including dignitaries from would be independent in truth as well the United States, Australia, Japan, as in law. and the People’s Republic of China as From the outset of his administra- well as representatives from a number tion, FSM President Peter M Christian of regional and international organiza- exhibited a clear-eyed appreciation tions with long-standing financial and of the federation’s challenges and technical programs of assistance for shortcomings. During the joint inau- the FSM (Yap Congressional Delega- guration ceremony on 10 July 2015 tion Office 2015a). Notwithstanding for President Christian, Vice President such dire sentiments, the president 94 political reviews • micronesia 95 devoted much of his inaugural address States could not release the bulk of to exhorting the people and govern- the requested infrastructure funding ments of the FSM to work together until the FSM produced an updated “to achieve our nation’s goal: to give national Infrastructure Development every citizen of the FSM an opportu- Plan. The FSM eventually completed nity—not just a promise—but a real and submitted its plan (for fiscal opportunity to build a better life” years 2016–2025) to jemco in early (fsmpio 2015). In its first full year in October 2015, after years of consul- office, the Christian administration led tations and crafting (fsmis, 22 Oct the FSM in an effort to achieve that 2015). In January 2016, jemco voted goal, with varying degrees of success. to approve $119 million in infrastruc- Financial grant assistance and ture sector grants under the amended visa-free entry and residency privileges compact. Although the approvals in the United States are arguably the were welcome news for the FSM, the main benefits that the FSM receives administration groused that the grants under the amended compact, but in were for infrastructure-related projects the period under review, those com- in the education and health sectors ponents generated the greatest fric- and not for other economic develop- tion between the FSM and the United ment projects not directly related to States. During the annual meeting education and health (fsmis, 17 Feb of the Joint Economic Management 2016). jemco signaled that it would Committee (jemco) on 1 September entertain the other infrastructure grant 2015, the United States majority on requests in future jemco meetings, in the committee made cuts of millions line with the newly completed FSM of dollars to FSM requests for grant Infrastructure Development Plan, but assistance in support of public-sector that remains to be seen. capacity building, private-sector The friction between the FSM and development, and infrastructure the United States over jemco deci- development, including disapproving sions seemed to reach a boiling point $50 million for infrastructure develop- as 2015 came to a close. In Novem- ment (fsmis, 21 Sept 2015). jemco’s ber 2015, prior to jemco approv- cuts were not unprecedented, joining a ing $119 million in infrastructure long history of aggressively question- grant funding for the FSM, Senator ing and reducing grant requests from Isaac V Figir, chairman of the Ways the FSM, including suspending the and Means Committee of the FSM bulk of infrastructure grant funding Congress, introduced Congressional since 2012. The FSM representa- Resolution (cr) 19-155 requesting tives nevertheless sharply criticized that President Christian terminate the the committee’s actions, noting that amended compact by 2018. The reso- infrastructure development was key lution criticized the United States for to achieving the dual objectives of “abus[ing] its majority” on jemco to “economic sustainability and bud- take actions contrary to FSM interests getary self-reliance” under the com- and accused the United States of treat- pact. The US representatives did not ing the compact as an “act of charity relent, arguing instead that the United by the United States rather than a 96 the contemporary pacific • 29:1 (2017) treaty between two sovereign nations” the University of Guam and released (FSM Nineteenth Congress 2015– in late February 2016, nearly all of 2017a). In accordance with Title Four the 180 respondents disapproved of of the amended compact and relevant terminating the amended compact, as legislation in the FSM, the FSM can requested by cr 19-155 (GDP, 29 Feb unilaterally terminate the amended 2016). Lawmakers in Guam seized on compact, but only pursuant to a a passage in the resolution that cited plebiscite in which at least 75 percent a request by the US Senate Committee of voters from each of at least three of on Appropriations that the US Depart- the four states of the federation vote in ment of Homeland Security “consider favor of termination (cofa 2003). establishing a pre-screening process cr 19-155 was the culmination and requiring advanced permission for of criticisms that Senator Figir had prospective travelers from the Feder- lodged against the FSM’s relationship ated States of Micronesia and other with the United States for more than a Freely Associated States to enter the decade, stretching back to the negotia- United States” (FSM Nineteenth Con- tion of the amended compact from gress 2015–2017a). The Guam Gov- 2001–2003, particularly with regard ernment had made a similar request to the jemco process and what he to the US federal government, in part perceived to be the process’s infringe- to screen out FSM migrants who were ment on the sovereignty and dignity of convicted of crimes in the FSM, and the FSM (KP, 30 Nov 2015). Interest- in part to keep out unhealthy FSM ingly, the recent resolution mirrored migrants who would place significant cr 17-61, introduced in 2011 in the strains on welfare services in Guam FSM Congress by then-Senator Peter (PDN, 5 Dec 2015). cr 19-155 turned Christian—the lead negotiator of the into a hot-button political issue in FSM during the negotiations for the Guam, with Guam Senator Frank Blas amended compact. cr 17-61 was Jr, pressing Congresswoman Madeline never adopted by the FSM Congress. Bordallo—Guam’s representative in As of press time, the FSM Congress the US Congress—to specify her stance had not acted on cr 19-155. on the resolution and the significant Figir’s proposed resolution touched impact its adoption would likely off a firestorm of reactions inside the have on Guam (kuam, 14 Dec 2015). FSM as well as abroad, including in Bordallo recalled her recent legislation Guam, Hawai‘i, and other parts of the introduced in the US Congress allocat- United States with sizable residential ing increased financial assistance from populations of FSM citizens. Perhaps the US federal government to Guam the sharpest flashpoints occurred in and other US jurisdictions impacted Guam, the US jurisdiction nearest by the influx of FSM migrants, par- to the FSM and therefore a major ticularly migrants that utilize welfare destination for FSM migrants seeking services in those jurisdictions. Guam employment, education, and health seemed to be uniquely positioned care (PDN, 8 Feb 2016). In a survey of to receive any such additional assis- the FSM population residing in Guam tance—for one, more than half of that was conducted by an educator at the homeless population in Guam at political reviews • micronesia 97 the beginning of 2016 was from the States or its territories.” Ambassador FSM, especially Chuuk (GDP 8 June Takesy reminded the attendees that the 2016).