On December 3, 2015, Senator Robson Romolow emailed to me his official response to my blog about his sponsorship of a congressional resolution to terminate the Compact of Free Association (COFA) treaty with the United States. In his written response which he also posted on his Facebook page, Senator Romolow (or whoever wrote his official response) essentially blamed me for not understanding anything related to the legislative process, admitted that he and his two congressional colleagues had no intention to move the resolution further, pointed to some lofty dream of helping the nation.
Sadly, the good senator failed to provide an alternative plan for the Compact. If he and his colleagues believe that the FSM is better off without the Compact with the US, then what is their alternative plan? He concluded by saying that he cannot reveal the true intentions of this controversial resolution. So, we are left without any solutions to hang our hopes. The question remains, “Terminate compact? Then start what?”
As promised, I am posting the senatorʻs response without any edits. Scroll down below for my analysis of the Senatorʻs responses.
- Senator Romolowʻs response (full text) – PDF format, 12/4/2015
My Analysis of Senator Romolowʻs Response
Robson U. Romolow
(Representing the Northwest Region of Chuuk)
19th FSM Congress
December 04, 2015
My greetings and sincere “tirou” to all readers, not least to my constituent and friend, Mr Vidalino Raatior. I would like to respond to the comments that Vid has been making in various fora in the course of the last two weeks in connection with a Resolution that, as member of the FSM Congress representing the Northwest region of Chuuk, I co-sponsored requesting for the termination of the Amended Compact of Free Association with the United States. Co-sponsored by two other colleagues, the Resolution was introduced during the recent 19th Regular Session of the FSM Congress (Nov 2015).
Vid’s watchdog passion is commendable; and so is his concerns for the welfare of our people, particularly those residing in the US, including Guam and Hawaii, under the umbrella of the Compact treaty.
Vid: I am honored that the good senator considers my article as some kind of formal “watchdog” effort. However, I made the personal decision to post my questions about his congressional resolution on my personal blog rather than my Chuuk Reform Movement website (www.chuukstate.org) which is my official watchdog website for Chuukʻs political leadership. That decision was based on the fact that I wanted to simply ask why my Northwest representative in Congress had sponsored a resolution that jeopardized the livelihood of the hundreds of Northwest citizens in Guam, Hawaii, and the US mainland. There is nothing “watchdog” about ONE private concerned citizen simply asking questions of the rationale for a politicianʻs decision on a very controversial national matter such as “termination” of the Compact that thousands of FSMers including Northwest people depend on.
However, I am sure Vid would readily agree that the watchdogs must also be watched. After all, who would make sure that they behave when left to their own devices, especially when they are virtually accountable to no one, being without official constituents? The watchdogs’ conventional claim to the “truth,” including their pretense to sincerity of intention and selflessness of purpose, is scarcely beyond reproach. Indeed, the watchdogs and their innocent-looking feline cousins could benefit from reaching out to the other points of view in a calm and open-minded manner. Accordingly, I would like to offer the following observations and explanations:
Vid: I am concerned that the good senator questions my sincerity in wanting to know the reasons for his public decision to end the compact. What is so insincere about me (or every other Northwest citizen) asking questions to understand the senatorʻs reasons, intentions for terminating the compact? This is the wrong message that he should be giving to the youth especially since he campaigned as the new voice for the future. If he is the new voice of the future, then he should encourage his people to ask him questions without getting defensive about it. He should also let his supporters to refrain from being defensive about the questions that Northwest constituents have every right to ask of their elected official.
His choice of words to label me has a lot of negative implications on future efforts of his constituents to ask questions. I am especially concerned that Northwest youth and women who already have a difficult time expressing their views because of our traditional culture will be branded as lamalam tekia for asking simple questions that they have a right to know.
What exactly is a watchdog? According to the Miriam Websterʻs Dictionary, a watchdog is “a dog that is trained to guard a place; a person or organization that makes sure that companies, governments, etc., are not doing anything illegal or wrong.”
Now, why would the senator consider me or anyone asking questions as watchdogs rather than just concerned citizens of the Northwest? Is there something illegal or wrong that is being done which has made him defensive? Will his supporters be the watchdog watchers? Letʻs remember this very simple fact: elected officials are answerable to no one but the citizens who elected them into office. To call citizens as watchdogs for asking questions, in my humble opinion, is demeaning to the process of transparency that we should expect of our elected leaders.
Since the good senator has officially branded me as a “watchdog” then I will honor him by taking on that role as the Northwest congressional watchdog. I will create a special section on the Chuuk Reform Movement website (www.chuukstate.org) specific to watching the actions, decisions, funding allocations, and statements of the good senator. If anyone wishes to honor the senator by taking on the role of watchdog of the watchdog, I invite them to step forward to make sure to question my questions. Letʻs do it in the name of transparency and not to protect our own relatives.
1)While I represent the NW region of Chuuk in the FSM Congress, I would, as I did, broach the issue of “termination” beyond NW for the simple reason that the magnitude and potential gravity of the subject goes far beyond the NW. In other words, Termination has direct relevance to our Nation as a whole, not just to a political subdivision thereof. As an elected official, I do expect that my actions on public affairs be judged and scrutinized by my constituents.
Vid: I applaud the good senatorʻs passion for taking on national interest, but does he really want to take on the burden of the nation at the expense of the Northwest regionʻs needs? After all, people voted him into office to solve the pressing issues of the NW region: low performing schools, under resourced dispensaries, lack of engagement of NW citizens abroad, job training for our youth to work in the US, preservation of our traditional customs and cultures, etc. Perhaps the senator should focus his two years in office on making the NW better and give the effort to make the FSM better to the senior members of the FSM Congress from election districts that are well off from the other states.
It is regrettable that my constituent and friend Vid almost succeeded in re-defining and re-packaging the Termination question and, having done so, downgraded it almost exclusively as a “NW issue” for the special attention of the “NW voters.” My simple and humble request to Vid is to help me keeping the subject in its proper perspectives. It is a national issue that should be maintained at the highest level of calm examination without muddying it up in localized considerations or by knee-jerk reactions.
Vid: Again, I commend the good senatorʻs desire to take on the FSM fight with the US. But it is still unclear to me why he is doing this rather than the senior members of congress when we have so much need in the Northwest? Why is it that the at-large members of the FSM Congress who represent the four states are not taking on this national fight with the US? Let them risk their political careers on sponsoring resolutions that call for the complete termination of the Compact with the US. Why wasnʻt compact termination part of his campaign so we can understand from the start of his tenure?
I think the good senator is putting the wrong priorities in front of him for the two years he has to make a difference in THE NORTHWEST. He is not an at-large member of congress to represent the stateʻs interest. He is representing the Northwest and this resolution to terminate the compact only hurts the NW citizens already in the US. And it will potentially prevent other NW citizens from entering the US to seek a better education, healthcare, jobs, etc.
Our NW is the most under-resourced region in the entire Chuuk State and our people deserve leadership in Congress who will focus on nothing else, yes nothing else, but the betterment of our people out there with the help of the people out here in the US. We need the good senator to focus on improving lives of the NW people at home and here in the US. Terminating the compact which has helped the NW people out here in the US is not the way to go.
For some humble recommendations which I wrote following the 2013 elections, I suggest the good senator see if they have any validity today as I believe they did back in 2013: http://www.raatior.com/top-priorities-for-the-northwest-leaders/
2)Vid’s pieces on the subject are well written. Unfortunately, he missed the point by overlooking to make the proper distinctions, in the context of law-making, between a “resolution” and a “bill.” Making that distinction is critical to understanding the preferred choice of procedure by which the co-sponsors of the proposed Resolution sought to effectuate their intention, while leaving room for continued dialogue. I appeal to Vid as a commentator on highly volatile public issues to aim well before going off on an indiscriminate shooting spree and engage in an analysis with inherently flawed bases.
Vid: Basically, what the good senator is saying is this: this resolution was never intended to become law? In other words, he, Figir and Nethon, only wanted to introduce it as a useless bluff. How irresponsible of these leaders to introduce a very public congressional resolution as an immature way to bluff the United States Government (USG) with no intention to proceed with it into law. Did they really think that the USG is as unsophisticated as the FSM Congress in their understanding of diplomatic negotiations? How truly pathetic of our leaders to approach the 2023 re-negotiations of the economic provisions of the Compact by bluffing the United States as if this is some kind of playground game?
Did the sponsors really think that by simply changing the dates on Peter Christianʻs 2011 resolution which never became a bill will force the USG hands? And did they think that we, the citizens of the FSM living in the US, will sit back and accept the resolution eventhough it stands to jeopardize the wellbeing of our families?
It probably wonʻt happen, but what if the United States answers with, “OK, letʻs terminate the compact.” Then what? What plans do these three congressmen and the president have in place for the thousands of FSM citizens already living in the US under the Compact? Do they have enough jobs back in the FSM? Can the hospitals take care of the critical health needs? Are the schools better now to provide good education for children? The simple answer is of course no.
Again, I take offense at the good senatorʻs choice of words by describing my series of questions to him as “indiscriminate shooting spree.” What is so indiscriminant about asking a series of questions of my representative in congress? Is the “shooting spree” referring to the fact that I had more than one question? Is he saying that to ask of him more than one question is too much, too many, too varied, too burdensome, too disrespectful, etc? And why is he blaming me for asking questions of this “highly volatile public issues” that he, Nethon, and Figir, and Peter Christian started? Again, this is the same approach of blaming the victim. They assaulted our emotions by calling for a termination of the compact that protects our wellbeing in the US, we ask questions why, and they blame the public outcry on us for asking too many questions (shooting spree).
By neglecting to differentiate a proposed resolution from a bill, Vid came close to sounding false alarm by announcing that the end of the world for the Northwest people residing in the US is right around the corner with the proposed Resolution that I co-sponsored. Apart from inadvertently playing on the ignorance of our people already in the US and for whom “deportation” is often an immediate scary thing, Deportation is a complex subject that Vid presented in too broad, sweeping and simplistic manner; the need for patient reflection on important public issues diminishes when the voting public is (mis)led into believing in the immediacy and presumed logical connection between Compact termination and deportation.
Vid: This paragraph is so condescending to all FSM citizens abroad I donʻt even know where to begin. Let me try to reflect on a few things:
1) The problem is not the improper definition of a resolution and a bill. The problem is the fact that an actual resolution was introduced in the first place by my representative which has no basis in helping the needs of the Northwest people for whom he was elected to represent. That is the issue…not the fact that I didnʻt define what a resolution is or what a bill is. Again, thatʻs blaming the victim.
2) The problem is not that FSM citizens are ignorant about the real threat of deportation. Actually, the Northwest people and FSM citizens residing in the US are generally very aware, smart, and understand deportation. We know that we are only able to enter, work, live, attend schools, seek healthcare, etc. in the United States because of the Compact.
We actually understand that without the Compact between the FSM and the US, we would not be able to seek employment in the US without a work visa. Without the Compact, we would not be able to enter the US borders without an I-20 visa as full-time students only as us oldtimers used to do way back in pre-Compact years. Without the Compact, we would not be able to enter the US with just our FSM passport. Without the Compact, our relatives who are still at home would not be able come to the US to seek the same opportunities.
FSMers are not as ignorant about deportation as the good senator makes us out to be. This is why those of us living in the US (Guam, Hawaii, mainland) opposed the Chuuk secession movement because it called for removal of Chuuk from the FSM Compact without any plans. What the congressional resolution has done is even worst than the Chuuk secession attempt. While the Chuuk Political Status Commission (CPSC) sought to secede Chuuk from the FSM, this congressional resolution seeks to completely terminate the very treaty that we fought the CPSC on. Complete termination without any other plans is downright unacceptable.
3) How can the good senator give empty assurance to the Northwest citizens already living in the US that they will not be deported if the Compact is terminated? According to an immigration lawyer Ladd Baumann as reported in the Pacific Daily News on September 29, 2015, “In general, if they cancel the Compact, then all things relative to the Compact, which include the right for FSM citizens to be in the United States, would be canceled.” What kind of international law is the good senator practicing to somehow prevent deportation when the FSM citizens no longer have a Compact treaty to protect them?
Nothing can be stretched beyond the simple truth that the proposed Resolution was a “request” intended for consideration by the FSM President. It has no “legal” teeth formally mandating the President to take this or that action. I respectfully ask my constituent and friend Vid to make the necessary clarification so as to avoid causing unnecessary confusion, however inadvertent.
Vid: Iʻm glad the good senator has clarified the intention of the “request.” In other words, this congressional resolution was a practice in futile, nonsensical, and unprofessional leadership of three FSM congressmen who had nothing better to do than to play with FSM citizens minds, hearts, and emotions by calling for a termination of the Compact. What kind of leaders are we dealing with here to go so far as to use the due process of legislation for something that they knew full well and admitting here that it was never intended to proceed into a bill / law? Is this the best use of our leadersʻ time and trust?
How do know now moving forward that any congressional resolution that these three elected officials sponsor will ever be intended to move toward passage as a bill or into law? This is no way to lead, in my humble opinion. This is like a political “cry wolf?” which has only embarrassed those of us who are their constituents.
How will these three leaders feel if the FSM citizens petition to recall them from their offices? Will they consider that act a bluff with no “legal” teeth? Or will they panic and worry about their jobs and their familyʻs wellbeing? My point is this: if these three congressmen knew all along that they had no intention to move forward with this congressional resolution, then they have a sick sense of humor. I suggest they step up and co-sponsor another congressional resolution apologizing for creating unnecessary stress for the citizens of this great nation of the Federated States of Micronesia.
3)I respect Vid’s capacity for detecting approaching storms (i.e., Secession and Education Priority in Chuuk). But his almost knee-jerk blowing of horn of immediate destruction betrays his lack of appreciation for the whole regime of “termination” as set forth in Article 144 of the Amended COFA as well as the formal mandate in effectuating this procedure, in whichever form, unilateral or mutual consent, it may take.
Vid: Once again, the good senator is blaming the victim here. Why is it now all of a sudden my responsibility to educate people about Article 144? The real question is why didnʻt he first educate the NW people about Article 144 before sponsoring this resolution and embarrass us? After all, the resolution calls for “termination of the Compact…” Why did they use those words in their resolution if they knew about Article 144?
The deeper question is, did he and his congressional colleagues know about Article 144 when they set about to co-sponsor this worthless congressional resolution calling for a termination of the Compact? If they had known about it, then they would NOT have wasted their time, the paper on which the resolution was printed, their breath, and the emotions of the good citizens of this nation. And by using this resolution as a way to bluff the US, did the senators think that the US Government somehow has forgotten about Article 144? The more I read about these reasons, the more disturbed I am by the sheer unprofessionalism of this entire futile approach to bluffing the United States.
In simple terms, members of Congress may express their views in the form of resolutions on almost any issue ranging from bird-watching to assessment of license fees on fishing vessels by distant water fishing countries in our EEZ to infrastructure sector grant and the Chuuk main road to global warming. (For instance, during the same session of Congress, my colleague Senator Ursemal of Yap introduced a resolution congratulating his favorite team, Kansas City Royals).
Vid: Indeed you have just listed the very disturbing reasons why citizens of the FSM have no confidence in the FSM Congress and their approach to preparing for 2023 when the economic provision of the Compact expires. Instead of implementing plans to ensure the nationʻs sustainability after 2023, our leaders waste their time sponsoring nonsensical resolutions about dogs, bird watching, KC Royals, and compact termination. Do they think that these resolutions build confidence in their leadership? Do they think that these resolutions make us proud of calling them our leaders?
But at the end of the day, the formal responsibility to take action on Compact termination rests with the Executive Branch. In other words, Congress does NOT have the first nor the last word in the matter of Compact termination. Thanks to the FSM Constitution itself, there are existing, built-in arrangements for safeguard. I appeal to my constituent and friend Vid that we both better get this straight, or somebody else may come in and reprimand us to do our homework well.
Vid: I think the good senator is forgetting that he needs to know the proper role of the Executive Branch. Moreover, he needs to know that there is a reason for having a 3-branch government: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. Itʻs meant to provide a check and balance to protect the government / people. I still donʻt have an answer as to why three members of the legislative branch decided to re-introduce a resolution that was first introduced by Peter Christian back in 2011 by simply changing the date, a few words, and add their names to it. That act of pushing forward the Presidentʻs resolution as theirs is deceptive and questionable. We should all be worried that there is a breakdown of our system of check and balance. I would hope that the legislative branch of which Senators Figir, Nethon, and Romolow are members, question the merit of everything that comes down from the Executive Branch rather than becoming the mouthpiece of the president.
Why wait for “somebody else” to reprimand us? Allow me to start by reprimanding the good senator for not doing his homework well before putting his good name (and by extension the Northwest region) on a worthless congressional resolution.
This is not to say that the Legislative Branch is completely without a role in the matter of Compact termination and renewal. While the conduct of diplomacy is preeminently the province of the Executive Branch, it still leaves plenty of room for collaboration to help ensure maximum effectiveness. There may be “times” when it will not be appropriate for the peace-seeking and friendship-loving diplomats to make utterances, yet such utterances need to be made, even if for purposes of tactical maneuver; it is under this and other circumstances where the so-called constituent-dominated and advantage-driven “politicians” should come into play and earn their fat pay, as is often said.
Vid: I have no idea what the above paragraph is saying since the good senator just reminded us about Article 144.
4)In view of the above, let me speak straight to the proposed Resolution itself. Truthfully, it did not happen overnight out of a wedlock dream. It is a serious undertaking triggered not by one event but by a series of events deployed by the US. I sincerely believed then, as I still do, that it was the best calculated response that could be given under the circumstances. The effectiveness of the intent of the proposed Resolution should be maintained or safeguarded by keeping an appreciable level of confidentiality of the details of our intentions or purposes that gave rise to the proposed Resolution in the first place, otherwise the fundamental objective of the Resolution would be altogether compromised.
Vid: This is actually very disturbing. It sounds like the good senator has been intenting all along to terminate the Compact when he first ran for office in 2013. If so, why didnʻt he say so then? Why didnʻt he make that as part of his larger vision for the Northwest during his campaign so we could know then his true intention for seeking that office?
We are asking questions because we had no idea that the good senator ran for office to terminate the compact. He had campaigned in both elections that he was the voice of the new generation? Has he lied all this time to voters of NW, the youth about helping them progress into the future when in fact he wanted to terminate the compact and end all opportunities for the youth to seek better education, jobs, healthcare, lives in the US?
This is not a whiplash on the “right” of the public to know what is going on in the government; but confidentiality has its own practical utilities employed even by so-called liberal, “open-door” governments. Imagine if demands for full disclosures were uncritically honored at all times. Without doubt, the result would be anarchy, which is not what neither my constituent and friend Vid and I actively promote. Even the FSM and US Supreme Courts, as well as the Holy See, use a little confidentiality, often a shorthand for “authorized secrecy.” In short, I seek your understanding that, at this point, it would be an act of grand irresponsibility for me to wholly compromise the noble intention that gave rise to the Resolution in the first place by divulging the details of its intention at this point.
Vid: This is becoming now even more confusing. First, the senator admitted in the earlier half of this document that he and his colleagues had no intention of moving this resolution to becoming a law. Now he says that there is some other “noble intention” which he cannot divulge or share with the public at this time. Which is it?
Does the good senator understand that by not sharing the true intention of this resolution, he is inviting the voters to speculate about the intention? Does he understand that without divulging the true intentions, then he should not complain if his constituents and the media (see Pacific Daily News article) come up with their own assessments or complaints. For example, in the same report about this issue the Pacific Daily News reported a connection with the Chinese government in the tune of $10 million and 15 vehicles given to the FSM. Without us knowing the truth from the senator, we are left with questions like, “Is there some kind of financial benefit for these senators from the Chinese?” This is the problem when politicians choose secrecy as their mode of operations.
To be sure, there are competing interests to be evaluated and reconciled, not an easy task. Idealism is great but it cannot be pushed ahead full-throttle at the expense of Practicality and Pragmatism. I appeal to my constituent and friend Vid and many others to recognize this essential fact of life. The time shall come when, after discharging my civic duty in upholding what I truly believe is the public interest, the historians will move in to write about the truth, at least perceptions thereof.
Vid: I think the good senator has misplaced narcissistic intentions here. It appears that he is choosing to make some kind heroic name for himself in some long term dream world. Basically, I understand the above statement to mean that we should just trust his ideas without any pragmatic (practical) application to the Northwest. I say, thatʻs nice, but at the end of the 2-year job he will be judged by the Northwest people not by some ideals about the nation, but about the practical needs of our people in the Northwest. In fact, I would venture to say that history is not on his side at this point because he is proposing to dismantle the very Treaty that Northwest giants like the late President Tosiwo Nakayama and others worked hard to build for our nation. By choosing to join Senator Figir who has been publicly against the Compact, the good senator has aligned himself directly against all those founders of our nation who negotiated the Compact.
So, in my humble opinion, the only “essential fact of life” that the good senator should focus on during his tenure in the FSM Congress is that he is answerable to the people of the Northwest, not to rush into assuming the role of national hero without building his worth as a local hero in the Northwest.
It was never my intention to sweat-mouth my constituent and friend Vid into embracing my views when I called him to offer to discuss the Resolution in a manner that is less confrontational or less grandstanding. However, it was my sincere hope that, through a frank and calm exchange of views between two men, he would come to a new horizon of understanding and a higher level of appreciation of the “sensitivity” of the subject especially at a time of posturing in view of the year 2023. I remain hopeful that he will reconsider the extension of my invitation to him, as I believe we could learn from each other without meaning to crudely brainwash each other
Vid: For the record, the good senator has never called me. I reached out to him on June 6, 2015, 6:00 am after he was elected and about to swear in. In my private FB message to him I wrote the following: “Congratulations, Senator. Let me know if you will be coming to Oahu for meeting with our NW people as I would very much like to sit down with you and talk about collaborative efforts in education for our region. I’m hopeful that you’ll bring fresh leadership to educational reform efforts for our schools in the NW that will serve our youth for years to come. Feel free to email me directly if you ever need me for anything. My email: vid@raatior.com.” I never heard back from him until he messaged me on November 26, 2015 at 5:03 am in which he started with the following line: “Vid did you post any question to matt kuor when he was championing the secession.” The entire transcript of that exchange was posted in its entirety for people to read and make their own judgement as to who was less confrontational. My point is that I reached out to the good senator to offer my help on educational reform efforts for the Northwest thinking that I might have some experiences to offer our region through his help. I never heard from him for 5 months until he decided to confront me about my questions of his decision to sponsor the resolution to end the Compact.
5)One other point that I was hoping to impress upon my constituent and friend Vid and others with similar views is that we are approximately only seven (7) years from 2023, which is when the financial and technical assistance provisions of the Compact, are speculated to terminate or are subject to be reviewed or reconsidered. Needless to say, these are “lovey-toughy” times of posturing by the parties to the Compact treaties. With two hundred years of experience under its belt and resources second to none, in contrast with the FSM’s mere thirty-six years of self-government and engagement in the international arena, the US is undoubtedly a master in this game of calculated moves and counter-moves. It is plain silly to think that the US has just been sitting idly by, though “idling” is one of the tools it could afford deploying and employing. The truth of the matter is that Uncle Sam has been busy strategizing and trying to finesse its pre-negotiating choreography, and we have seen statements emerging from the mouths of various US officials in the past few years that the US Government would not “renew” or “renegotiate” the financial package of the Compact come 2023.
Vid: I think this is the real problem with the good senatorʻs decision to sponsor the “teethless” and worthless resolution calling for an end to the Compact. He has assumed that the people of the Northwest elected him to be the savior of the country rather than the savior of the Northwest. This whole document reads like President Christianʻs cartoonist approach to narcissistic bully diplomacy. Mind you, bullies are never diplomatic.
What the good senator seems to be forgetting is that he only has two years to prove that he can bring the Northwest region out of poverty. He only has two years to help improve the educational output in the region. He only has two years to focus all his energy to improve the lives of our young people. He only has two years to prove that he can create job opportunities for our youth. He only has two years to unite the region and prepare for 2023. There is no guarantee that he will still be in Congress when the negotiations for 2023 begin which will be about two years out (2021). This is misplaced priorities for the senator.
The relevant question for us in the FSM, as well as for our citizens currently residing in the US, is this: what can we do in view of the approaching year 2023 and the posturing already carried out by the US? Admittedly, this is not an easy task, but it is a task that we must take up. In doing my part, I would like to remind that I did not seek the NW seat in Congress because I believed there will be easy solutions to our Compact future.
Vid: Actually, most FSM citizens residing in the US are already doing their part to prepare for 2023 by trying to get a better education, earn an honest dayʻs work, send money home to the FSM to help their relatives, putting their children in schools, staying out of the criminal justice system, avoiding the welfare system, etc. It is our leaders in the FSM Congress who are not doing their part to prepare the nation for 2023. Our leaders continue to threaten to terminate the very treaty that enables us to thrive in the United States. Our leaders focus on worthless resolutions about dogs, baseball teams, bird watching, etc. rather than putting sound plans into action. Our leaders continue to throw “projects” and cash at voters as if it’s their hard earned pay when they should be creating innovative ways for FSMers to be self-sustaining. Our leaders back home continue to question the US in its responsibility to put fiscal accountability on public funds. Letʻs set the record straight here that FSM citizens are waiting for real leadership…not these worthless bluffing actions.
I did envision that I would take unpopular stands, such as I did when co-sponsoring the proposed Resolution. There are times, and there will be more, to have the courage to stand up and let our voice be heard. There will also be times when we must challenge ourselves to do things that we have grown accustomed to having others doing for us. Not a charity to be handed to us in wholesale portions by others, self-dignity is self-earned and maintained.
Vid: This sounds good, but the truth of the matter is that sometimes charity begins at home. In other words, we as the Northwest people cannot help anyone in the nation if we ourselves are sinking. We cannot help a sinking Titanic when our canoe has holes in it that needs to be repaired. All Iʻm saying is that the wellbeing of the Northwest people should be the first and foremost priority for the good senator…NOT some philosophical hope to save the nation of the FSM by terminating the very compact that is helping Northwest citizens to make something of their childrenʻs future.
In short, if you had expected me to sit in the NW chair in Congress and remain silent or just follow the majority out of fear or intimidation, such expectation was woefully misguided. I expect to be held up in stringent scrutiny, while continuing to have the courage to speak up for my conviction or what I truly believed to be in the best interest of my constituents, our Chuuk State, and our Nation. These are amongst the issues that will be covered in the second and forthcoming responses to Vid’s comments.
Vid: Actually, sir, we are not asking you to remain silent. In fact, we are asking you to speak up, lead, legislate, perform, do anything to help the Northwest. I honor your conviction and leadership. I only question your priorities. I believe you were elected into office by the majority of Northwest people to help the Northwest. For the sake of the Northwest people, help the Northwest please. Let others from more well off election districts to do the fighting for the nation. Be humble and focus on your people in the Northwest rather than focusing your energy these two years to do other peopleʻs dirty work for them. Thatʻs all Iʻm humbly asking of you.
Additional Reading…(in chronological order of publication)
- “FSM citizens to lose immigration status if compact ends” – Pacific Islands Report, 12/7/2015
- “An end to U.S – Micronesia Treaty?” – Civil Beat, 12/6/2015
- “FSM citizens to lose immigration status if compact ends” – Pacific Daily News, 12/5/2015
- “FSM resolution proposes to end Compact agreement with U.S.” – Pacific Daily News, 12/4/2015
- “Introduced congress resolution does not mean cancellation of Compact with U.S.” – Kaselehlie Press, 11/30/2015
- “Trusting politicians in due time” – Vid Raatior Blog, 11/25/2015
- “Senator Romolow wants to end Compact. Why?” – Vid Raatior Blog, 11/24/2015
- “Congressional Resolution 19 – 155” – FSM Congress, 11/19/2015
