Information shortage in Micronesia

Pacific Reflections By Gabriel McCoard

I must confess that I am guilty of doing what I despise most in journalism: not returning to a topic after the first burst of interest.

Perhaps it’s not the worst offense; reporting by predetermined formula and sloppy investigating are far worse, but it does rank high on my list of journalistic sins.

And by this, I mean when something bursts out in a blaze of importance only to fizzle once the first headline grows boring, like when an arrest for a horrific crime rocks headlines, but barely causes a ripple when those charges are dismissed. That kind of thing.

So, I am going to fix that. Over the past few years, I’ve mentioned various pieces of legislation (“legislations” in the local parlance, which honestly works as a word) introduced in the U.S. Congress. Among them was the Blue Pacific Act, reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, aimed at advancing a comprehensive, long-term United States policy for the Pacific islands (their terms, not mine). In January last year, it was referred to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Natural Resources and Ways and Means. There it remains. Death by Committee, for now.

The U.S. State Department, after initial hesitation, finally disclosed in January details of a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Palau that involved the Pacific island nation accepting individuals deported from the U.S.

It’s now publicly available on their Freedom of Information Act website. I guess an interested party won’t have to file a lawsuit, which is good because while I wanted to know what is in this agreement, my day job doesn’t leave me with much energy for on-the-side litigation. I just want to know why the U.S. State Department and Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr. didn’t simply make the agreement public from the beginning.

While on the subject of less than complete information, the FSM Supreme Court rendered an opinion on the Chuuk governor’s race. From what I can tell from the summaries and screenshots of the 16-page opinion, Mark Mailo and Joe Enlet saw their challenge to Alexander Narruhn and Mekioshy William dismissed. I haven’t been able to find the full opinion, but from what I could tell, Mailo’s challenge was not properly verified and not filed within the required time.

In other words, the court focused narrowly on the Chuuk election law and did not consider the myriad of other issues. Or so I’m guessing since neither the court nor the online compilation of cases has it available, at least not yet.

For starters, the court leaves untouched any answer to the question of what it means for the national government to guarantee a democratic form of government when large segments of the population do not believe an election was properly conducted (and on the flipside, whisking away the victory of someone who large segments of society believe was properly elected.)

The saga continues, and if there’s an election, you can expect an election challenge.

In the meantime, I’ll try to dig up a copy of the official opinion from the court, but I have a request: Could the international community–whatever that may be–see fit to instruct, excuse me, provide instruction to sitting justices on the importance of easy public access to court opinions?

From the FSM Supreme Court website, I saw flowcharts of the court’s organization, pictures of the justices, calendars and even strategic reports. The FSM law site, meanwhile, contains cases dating only to 2022.

A democratic society might benefit from the timely release of documents that determine a country’s public policy. The ability to vote depends entirely on a citizenry that knows why it’s voting.

Which brings one final update: what has happened to America’s pivot to the Pacific? Has the U.S. abandoned it? Has it continued it? I constantly change my mind on this, which the current administration makes easy.

ADVERTISEMENT

While it’s true that the U.S. has long treated Micronesia, if not all of Asia, as a backwater, it is also the case that in recent years the U.S. has put more money and resources into the islands than it probably ever has.

More visits from the U.S. military, more civil assistance, more military-use installations and medical visits. But constantly reacting rather than acting is an exercise in exasperation.

Perhaps it’s time to retire the pivot and rethink what the U.S. is doing, or should be doing, in the Pacific. There must be a comprehensive, long-term United States policy for the Pacific islands and beyond. That will merit more than an occasional update.

Gabriel McCoard is an attorney who previously worked in Palau and Chuuk State. Send feedback to gabrieljmccoard@hotmail.com.

Subscribe to

our digital

monthly issue