Written by Senator Peter Christian-representative of the State of Pohnpei to the Seventeenth Congress of the Federated States of Micronesia.
On May 3, 1886, the Reuters news service reported by telegraph from London that ‘a convention has been signed on the part of Great Britain by Sir E.B. Malet, English Ambassador at Berlin, and on behalf of Germany, by Prince Bismarck, setting forth the delimitation of the present future spheres of occupation in the Western Pacific.’ Among other provisions, the convention stipulated ‘the continued neutrality of Tonga and Samoa.’ We are truly fortunate in the twenty-first century to be able to debate whether or not our island states should be neutral, rather than having such decisions imposed upon us from thousands of miles away.
In this Pacific Century, the island states of our region have both the opportunity and a responsibility to engage with other nations as equal members of the world community, and to be a force for peace and justice in the world. I believe that a retreat into a self-imposed neutrality would be an abrogation of that responsibility, and would ultimately prove to be unsustainable. I propose instead a posture of ‘flexible engagement’ with other nations, based upon our shared values and mutual self-interests.
I believe that neutrality is simply not a sustainable option for Pacific island states. History has shown that the neutrality of small nations strategically situated between great powers can be terminated at will in a manner that could be described as nasty, brutish, and short. Just ask Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania. Our nations, standing alone, lack the military power to guarantee any self-declared neutrality. Nor do I believe we would wish to divert the economic resources sufficient to establish such power, even if such resources were available. Furthermore, in an era of increasing globalisation, neutrality will do nothing to help us avoid the repercussions of decisions and actions taken by other states. We have seen the impact on our economies and our environment of the Euro crisis, the rise in oil prices, and increased global warming. Currency fluctuations, commodity prices, and rising sea levels will not respect our neutrality.
However, I do not advocate as an alternative to neutrality that our island states develop an exclusive relationship with one power or another. We do not want to duplicate the conditions of the Cold War, with two superpowers and their satellite states becoming petrified into two hostile camps. On the other hand, we need not seek to be mathematically even-handed in our dealings with other nations. In Micronesia, we particularly appreciate our special relationship with the United States and the friendship and support that nation has extended to us, and it is difficult to envisage an exact duplication of that relationship with any other nation.
‘Micronesia began in the days when man explored seas in rafts and canoes. The Micronesian nation is born in an age when men voyage among stars; our world itself is an island. We extend to all nations what we seek from each: peace, friendship, cooperation, and love in our common humanity.’ So reads the Preamble to the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia, drafted by representatives from the states of Pohnpei, Chuuk, Yap, and Kosrae that now make up the Federated States of Micronesia, as well as from Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. I am sure that our friends in Melanesia and Polynesia would concur in these shared values. History and geography have bestowed upon our region a unique opportunity to pursue these values at an international level. In addition to our strategic position at the crossroads of East and West, our collective representation at the United Nations gives us significant influence, particularly if we can work together to establish common positions and vote as a bloc. Only a policy of flexible engagement with our international partners will maximise our influence and allow us to be true to our values.
In terms of some of our values, such as respect for family and tradition, we may find ourselves more aligned with eastern nations, while with respect to others, such as freedom and democracy, we may be closer to the west. It would be unfortunate if we found ourselves unable to support measures promoting these values from a fear that support for the nations proposing such measures would violate our neutrality.
Similarly, our geographical position between the United States and China places us in a unique position to help broker better relations between those two states and to be a force for regional and global peace. Our network of relationships with other nations can be a stabilising factor in the region. It would be a mistake to disengage from such relationships, either from a concern for neutrality or by aligning exclusively with one side or another.
In a globalised world, we can maximise our economic interests by choosing to enter trade and investment agreements on a case by case basis with whichever nation offers the best terms, whether that nation be China, the United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, France, Russia, or some other country. We should partner with whichever nations can help us fight the threats to our region from economic instability, environmental degradation, and global warming, regardless of their geopolitical alignment.
We must engage with other nations to pursue our values and interests. Much of the time, such engagement will require making choices, taking sides, and favoring one nation or group of nations over another. A policy of neutrality would constrain our ability to make such choices. Only a strategy of flexible engagement will give our island states the flexibility we need to face the challenges of the twenty-first century.
