GIFF JOHNSON
Much was written and said about last week’s US Pacific Islands Summit in Washington, DC, which was the first time a US president hosted a large group of Pacific heads of state at the White House.
It generated multiple wire service stories and widespread media coverage around the globe, reporting on Washington’s effort to reengage with the Pacific region.
The two days of events with leaders from the region also included US Secretary of State Antony Blinken leading a session on the Compact with the three Freely Associated States Presidents: David Kabua, FSM’s David Panuelo and Palau’s Surangel Whipps, Jr.
The events showcased President Joe Biden’s promise of strengthening the partnership between the US and the region. “We share a vision for a resilient Pacific region of peace, harmony, security, social inclusion, and prosperity, where individuals can reach their potential, the environment can thrive, and democracy will be able to flourish,” said the declaration that was agreed by Biden, Kabua and other heads of state. Only Kiribati did not attend of the independent countries in the region.
For the most part, the funding announced — over $800 million — was a bit of window dressing. The majority of this funding, $600 million, is aid attached to the US Pacific Islands fisheries treaty that gives US-flagged boats access to fishing in the region. So this is tied to giving US vessels fishing access, not some new funding stream, and has yet to be approved by the US Congress for a 10-year period ($60/million per year). However, there is promised funding for a number of areas, including some climate activity.
For the Marshall Islands, there are two important sentences included in the 11-point declaration.
After acknowledging “the nuclear legacy of the Cold War,” perhaps the key sentence, from the perspective of many in the RMI, is this: “The United States remains committed to addressing the Republic of the Marshall Islands’ ongoing environmental, public health concerns, and other welfare concerns.”
The other is more generalized but relates to Compact negotiations: “We place the highest priority on the resolution of unresolved issues and the timely and successful completion of negotiations relating to the Compacts of Free Association between the United States and the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau—one of the cornerstones of US-Pacific cooperation for nearly four decades. The United States recognizes that new resources must be part of any successful negotiation.”
“I thank the United States for the declaration,” said Speaker Kenneth Kedi, who has been an ardent advocate for getting the US agree to solve the nuclear test legacy problem. “I’m thankful this was included because the US wanted to drop it,” he said referring to the nuclear legacy. “But the statement doesn’t respond to what we believe ought to take place.”
He said the US could have said that it is “committed to resolve the claims and awards” of the Marshall Islands. Instead, the wording makes it sound as if the US has been involved in an ongoing way to resolve the nuclear legacy, which he said is not the case. “The second Compact was an opportune time to address it but nuclear was not in it,” he said.
“It would have been great for the US to say, ‘we made a mistake and we’re going to rectify the problem,’” the Speaker said. That would have been great for Pacific Island countries to hear.” It would have “given comfort” to the RMI and countries in the region that care about the RMI’s nuclear legacy, he said.
US Compact negotiator Ambassador Joseph Yun informed President Kabua last week in Washington that the recently aborted third round of Compact talks — supposed to have been held in Washington ahead of last week’s White House summit — will now be held in the RMI later this month or early November.
The Speaker said, however, that the entire Compact Negotiating Committee decided not to travel to Washington for the talks based on the lack of a written response from the US to its nuclear settlement proposal, and the entire CNC likewise needs to agree on details for the next round of talks. “Shouldn’t the RMI have a written response?” he asked. “As important as this discussion is to the future of the nation and the relationship between our two nations, we need to be diligent and transparent.”