The Plebiscite on the Future Political Status of the Federated States of Micronesia: Factionalism, Separatism, and Sovereignty
Schwalbenberg, Henry M. (July 1984). "The Plebiscite on the Future Political Status of the Federated States of Micronesia: Factionalism, Separatism, and Sovereignty". The Journal of Pacific History. 19 (3): 172–184. doi:10.1080/00223348408572492. ISSN 0022-3344.
Abstract: Despite a low turn-out of voters, the people of the Federated States of Micronesia chose free association (COFA) with the United States at a plebiscite on 21 June 1983 to determine their future political status. Free association is a compromise between in- dependence and political absorption by the United States. Some see its acceptance as the beginning of Micronesian independence from within a healthy partnership with the United States. Others believe it is simply a continuation of Micronesian dependence on the United States and the continuance of American colonialism under a new name.
The Federated States of Micronesia comprise the states of Yap, Kosrae, Ponape (Pohnpei) and Truk (Chuuk). Overall, 25,610 of their people took pan in the plebiscite, representing only 60.5% of eligible voters. Of these, 79% favored free association. But when the same voters responded to an optional, non-binding question on the best alternative to free association, 54.4% voted for outright independence as against 24.4% for closer ties with the United States. The remaining votes were void or spoiled. However, the voting pattern was not even from state to state A little over half of the people of Ponape voted against free association while those in the other three states voted solidly for it. On the other hand. 60.9% of Truk's people favored independence in the second ballot against 54.8% of Ponapeans. But the entire Faichuk section of Truk state, representing 6,218 registered voters, heavily boycotted the plebiscite.
The plebiscite showed up the fragile unity of the Federation and the resentment that has been engendered among the Micronesians over yielding elements of their sovereignty in exchange for U.S. financial assistance. It also showed how far some fac- tions would go in the pursuit of self-aggrandizement.
The raison d'art for American involvement in what is called the Compact of Free Association is military denial— the right to prevent the Soviet Union, or any other potential aggressor, from gaining military access to the land, harbors, or airfields of the central Pacific islands for as long as the U.S. determines a need to be a Pacific power. The quid pro quo for military denial, though never stated so bluntly, is substantial American financial assistance to underwrite the Micronesian economy. Incidental to the agreement, it seems, but perhaps more noble, is the ending of direct American colonial administration of the islands; but not without the continuation of certain over- sight controls to prevent Micronesian governments (torn manipulating their strategic location for financial gain and thereby undercutting American naval dominance and, presumably, threatening peace in the Pacific.
Extra details:
MAG: 2035043509 OpenAlex: W2035043509 CorpusID: 161658220
