Trusteeship Council recommends early completion of process of approval of compact for Palau.

Trusteeship Council recommends early completion of process of approval of Compact for Palau

THE Trusteeship Council on 28 May recommended that the process of approval of the Compact of Free Association between Palau--one of the four entities of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands--and the United States, the Territory's Administering Authority, be completed at the earliest possible date.

It noted that the people of the Trust Territory, in exercise of their right to self-government, had elected to assume full responsibility for administration in the economic, social and educational fields. It also noted with satisfaction assurances given by the Administering Authority that it would continue to fulfil its responsibilities under the Charter and the Trusteeship Agreement.

The Council recalled its resolution 2183 (LIII) of 28 May 1986, by which it had stated it considered that the United States, the Administering Authority of the Trust Territory, had "satisfactorily discharged its obligations under the terms of the Trusteeship Agreement' and that it was "appropriate' for the Agreement to be terminated on entry into force of the Compacts of Free Association for the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau, and the Commonwealth Covenant in respect of the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Council at that time also requested the United States, in consultation with the Governments of those four entities, to agree on a date not later than 30 September 1986 for the full entry into force of the Compacts of Free Association and Commonwealth Covenant, and to inform the Secretary-General of that date.

The agreement with the Marshall Islands entered into force on 21 October 1986; that with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Northern Marianas Islands entered into force on 3 November 1986. The USSR voted against resolution 2183.

The Council adopted its most recent text on the Palauan Compact in the form of a report of its Drafting Committee (France and the United Kingdom) which will become part of its overall report to the Security Council. The Soviet Union also voted against this text, with France, the United Kingdom and the United States voting positively.

Sergey Smirnov of the USSR said the Council text could "mislead the United Nations and the international community' with regard to what he called "anti-Charter and illegal activities' by the United States in Micronesia. Its decisions disregarded the "letter and spirit' of the Charter, the Trusteeship Agreement and the 1960 Declaration on decolonization. They also "further pushed the Council along the path of violation of its mandate', and were designed to assist in concealing "United States annexationist activities in Micronesia'.

Patricia Byrne of the United States called the text "appropriate and constructive' and "rooted firmly in the reality of Micronesia and in the processes of self-determination that had taken place there'.

Stephen Smith of the United Kingdom and Jean-Michael Gaussot of France said the text took full account of Council discussions and reflected the real situation in the territory, responding to the wishes of the people of Micronesia, which, as Mr. Smith said, were "quite clearly not for independence but for the form of self-government which they had chosen'.

Other May action

In other action at the May 1987 session, the Council decided to dispatch a Visiting Mission to observe another plebiscite in Palau, to take place on 23 June, on the Compact--the fourth such voting process to take place. Resolution 2185 (LIV) was adopted by 3 votes in favour (France, United Kingdom, United States) to 1 against (USSR).

By a vote of 3 to 1, the Council approved resolution 2186 (LIV), noting the report of its November/December 1986 Visiting Mission to Palau and expressing appreciation for its work.

The body's fifty-fourth session, which began on 11 May and suspended on 28 May, will resume in August to consider its report to the Security Council. Other items considered in May related to: offers by Member States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of the Trust Territory; dissemination of information on the United Nations and the International Trusteeship System in the Territory; co-operation with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and with the Special Committee on decolonization; and the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.

The Council's five members are: China, France, the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the United States. China does not participate in the body's work.

Of the original 11 Territories under the United Nations Trusteeship System, Micronesia is the only one designated a "strategic area'. Because of that status, the Trusteeship Council reports to the Security Council about conditions in Micronesia.

Article 83 of the United Nations Charter states that "all functions of the United Nations relating to strategic areas, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreement and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the Security Council'.

Background

The Council also examined the annual report of the United States as Administering Authority, covering political, economic and social developments in the Territory between 1 October 1985 and 30 September 1986.

The United States report stated that on 3 November 1986, President Reagan had issued a presidential proclamation putting into full force the Compacts of Free Association for the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, and on fully implementing the Covenant to establish a Commonwealth for the Northern Mariana Islands.

The proclamation referred to "the beginning of new relationships between the United States and the island groups that have emerged from the Pacific Islands Trust Territory'. The Northern Mariana Islands was a United States Commonwealth and its people United States citizens; the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia were "sovereign, self-governing nations in free association with the United States,' the report stated.

Palau, it said, had not yet finally approved its Compact of Free Association. "Until Palau's future political status is resolved, the United States will continue to discharge its responsibilities there as Administering Authority under the Trusteeship Agreement', the document stated.

Palau had not met its constitutional requirements for a 75 per cent majority in favour of the Compact, the United States report continued. A clear majority, however, had approved of Free Association in every vote. The Administering Authority was confident that termination could take place as soon as the internal process of approving the Compact had been completed.

The United States Government said its internal process of approving the Compact had been completed. As soon as the people of Palau approved it, the United States would "so certify to the Congress and a joint resolution is all that will be required to complete the action', the report stated.

Steady progress reported

Fiscal year 1986 in Micronesia was marked by steady progress in nearly every area, the United States reported. Many capital improvement projects had been turned over to the local government for administration, and several had been completed.

Peaceful transitions had been effected in elections for governors and legislatures, and the democratic process had taken "strong root' in each society. In May 1986, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) had admitted all four Governments of the Trust Territory as separate associate members in their own rights, a "substantial step in developing international and regional contacts as autonomous governments'.

Foreign investment continued to increase throughout the islands, especially by Japan. But other countries, including some European Governments, had sponsored foreign aid projects. All such aid was being conducted on a government-to-government basis.

Economic development was spurred on by improved infrastructure. A sub-stantial gain in tourism was recorded, with new hotels under construction. Forward progress in the areas of health, fisheries, manufacturing and public services was also noted.

Training programmes were instituted to help prepare the new Governments to accept the administration of functions which remained to be transferred. With the exception of "growing pains' in some areas, there had been ample demonstration of the competence of the people and their elected Governments to take over complete control of their destinies, the United States stated.

General Debate

Stephen Smith of the United Kingdom said that last year his delegation had co-sponsored Trusteeship Council resolution 2183 of 28 May 1986 in the belief that the Council should recognize progress made in the Trust Territory towards the development of free political institutions and the establishment of self-government and should acknowledge the requests made by the elected representatives of the Territory for early termination of the Trusteeship Agreement. The United Kingdom believed that by adopting that resolution, the Council had acted in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of Micronesia.

The Trust Territory still had a number of economic problems and the people of Micronesia remained to an extent dependent on the United States, but the Administering Authority had put a great deal into reducing that dependency. Micronesian entities would continue to receive generous funding from the United States, and "if the United States is to be faulted for its efforts in these areas, it is on the grounds of excess rather than neglect'.

Council members must remain aware of the realities of the situation and listen to the Micronesians themselves. By a clear majority, they had chosen a new status that suited them, and which brought with it the benefits and responsibilities of self-government. "We in this body should not seek to deny them the new status they have chosen.'

Jean-Michel Gaussot of France said Micronesia had seen great political, economic and social change since the entry into force of the Trusteeship Agreement in 1947. France agreed that it had been a good year for the Territory, with new foreign investment and improved infrastructure. The Administering Authority continued to carry out its obligations in an impressive number of spheres of activity; Micronesians played a growing role in managing their economy.

However, components of Micronesia, especially Palau, remained dependent on economic assistance from the Administering Authority.

The Micronesians had exercised their right of self-determination and had freely chosen their constitutional future. On that basis the Territory's authorities had expressed their desire to see an end to the Trusteeship. France hoped that prompt follow-up action would be taken by the Trusteeship Council, in accordance with Charter provisions, so that the four entities of the Trust Territory might finally benefit from the constitutional status they had freely chosen.

Sergey Smirnov of the USSR said that the United States had ignored the genuine interests of the indigenous population of Micronesia. The cornerstone of its policies was protection of its global military strategic interests. As the Administering Authority, the United States had not fulfilled its obligations under Article 76 a of the Charter which stated that a basic objective of the trusteeship system was "to further international peace and security'.

The Security Council had entrusted the United States with the administration of the Trust Territory as one whole. However, having met with resistance from Micronesian political forces which were trying to preserve the unity of the Territory and the people, the United States had deliberately embarked upon a policy of fragmenting the Territory and sowing disunity among its inhabitants. The United States had also deliberately slowed the development of the Territory in order to prevent Micronesians from making an independent political choice.

Negotiations on the future of the Territory had been illegally imposed on the Micronesians by the United States, conducted in conditions of unequal status of the parties, and carried out by means of political and economic pressure. Nor had the United Nations participated in them.

Patricia Byrne of the United States said that the United States continued to respect fully the wish of the Council and of the people of the Territory, and duly reported all measures taken to carry out the decisions of the Trusteeship Council. Constitutional self-government had taken firm root throughout Micronesia. Democratic institutions were in place and the people of the region were enjoying the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a free society. The Trusteeship Council had recognized previously that the peoples of the Trust Territory had freely exercised their right to self-determination.

There had been great economic progress in Micronesia, she went on. More than 85 per cent of the $390 million capital-improvement programme had been used for infrastructure projects to help attain a high, sustainable standard of living for the Micronesian people. There had also been a substantial growth in educational opportunities for the citizens of Micronesia, including the emergence and development of local institutions of higher education. The Micronesians had access to more and better health care than at any time in their history.

Micronesia continued to be a peaceful and stable place, thus contributing to global peace and security.

Visiting Missions

The United Nations Visiting Mission to observe the November/December 1986 plesbiscite on the Palauan Compact included the representatives of France, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and the United Kingdom.

It reported that two thirds of those voting had approved the revised Compact of Free Association with the United States. Of a total of 8,775 valid votes cast, 5,789 or 65.97 per cent were in favour of the Compact, and 2,986 or 34.03 per cent were against.

The Mission reported that voting had been conducted efficiently and in secret. The Mission concluded that "the people of Palau were able to vote freely and in accordance with their wishes'.

In two previous plebiscites--in February 1983 and February 1986-- 62 per cent and 72 per cent, respectively, voted in favour. In none of the plebiscites was the required majority vote obtained. Palau's Constitution stipulates that the Compact must be approved by at least 75 per cent of those voting, as one Compact provision would permit the United States to operate nuclear-capable or nuclear-propelled vessels and aircraft within Palau's jurisdiction.

Photo: Political discussions regarding the future of Palau took place.