The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Micronesia

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Tonight, an unusual story from a faraway place. Across three million square miles of the Pacific Ocean are flung 2,000 tiny islands. They are called Micronesia, and they include the Caroline Islands and the Marshalls. Although they cover the better part of the Pacific between Hawaii and Japan, an area as large as the United States, the total land mass of Micronesia is only half that of Rhode Island and their population is only 100,000 people.

Micronesia is also known as the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. It`s the last trust in the world, and it`s entrusted to the United States. It may well be becoming Paradise lost, instead of Paradise saved. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, these islands came to the United States from Japan as the spoils of war -- World War II. Some of the bloodiest battles of the war were fought on and around them: Saipan, Tinian, Eniwetok, Truk Lagoon and Peleliu. Peleliu, for instance, is remembered by Marines and former Marines to this day as one of the grimmest, toughest little battles of the war in terms of dead and wounded. Tinian is well-known also because the Enola Gray, the bomber that dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima, took off from there.

After the war the United Nations Security Council gave the whole island group to the United States as a security trust. The U.S. thus took responsibility for the political, social, economic and educational advancement of the people who lived on the islands. The military interest remained until 1960. Some were used for air bases, others for nuclear tests.

But in the early sixties the U.N. pushed the U.S. into doing more, and money for social improvements began to flow. The Peace Corps sent in volunteers to aid in education and health, and U.S. financial assistance has grown dramatically since: $25 million in 1967; $50 million by 1970; $72 million in 1976. In fact, last year all U.S. assistance and programs added up to $1000 for every Micronesian. That makes the Trust Territory the United States` biggest welfare state. To the benefit of the people? Well, not necessarily. Robin?

MacNEIL: Tonight, what have we done to Micronesia and what should we be doing? First let`s look at the islands themselves and their people. Here are excerpts from a film made in 1974 by WGTV, Georgia Public Television. They called it, "That Uncertain Paradise."

(Over film.) U.S. involvement in this tropical paradise remains, after thirty years, virtually unknown to the average American taxpayer. Vestiges of Paradise still remain in these islands, but the constant pumping in of U.S. money has brought the Micronesian people to a strange halfway point between a modern age of jets and automation -- and the more traditional and simpler forms of life. This awkward accommodation of past and present is apparent everywhere. In the district centers, the flags symbolize their unusual form of government. Changes under the trusteeship have been profound and much of the past has been forgotten.

These dancers. who once might have been importuning the gods or depicting scenes from history, are now only college students recalling their roots as a hobby. Ironically, this dance is a native version of the World War II battles fought between Japan and the U.S. on their homeland.

For the most part, Micronesia is an imported society. There are more grocery stores on Saipan per capita than anywhere in the United States. The fish Micronesians buy on the shelves is caught off their shores by the Japanese, canned in Japan and resold to them. The vast seas were once a tremendous part of their daily lives, but western technology and the false economy has ended Micronesia`s need for the oceans. Today, old sailing canoes lie in dry dock, next to gas cans used to fuel power boats.

Traditional housing still exists in parts of the islands. They are built with frames of native wood, then covered with palm fronds arranged like shingles for the roofs and matted on the walls. The skill to make these houses is waning. In fact, as education has increased, most manual labor skills have become forgotten. Despite high unemployment in the islands, Micronesia is forced to import Filipino laborers to do the carpentry, bricklaying and other jobs necessary for economic growth.

Today, the old building materials have been replaced by corrugated metal sheeting, two-by-fours, nails and concrete blocks. As soon as a family can afford these materials, the new-style houses become status symbols. But unlike the natural materials of old, disposal of these new materials often ends up with twisted metal in a lagoon. Particularly in district centers, the result of this has been the emergence of slums.

The problem has been particularly acute for young people. More than half the population is now under sixteen. Joblessness has stimulated enlistment in the U.S. military, but there has also been a growth in crime and suicide.

The American style education has emphasized the American ideal of liberal arts. It was developed in large part by Peace Corps volunteers. The schooling prepares the students for white collar jobs, which in their society exist only in government. At this point about half of all wage earners work in government, and much of it is make-work. On its own scale the Micronesian bureaucracy rivals our own.

Behind the modern facade is still a coconut economy. The coconut trees grow in abundance on the islands and they produce coconuts all year round. The natives extract a cool drink from the green nuts; they make rope from the husk, mats from the leaves; and they use the trunks for lumber. But the only marketable part is the meat, which they dry on the beaches to produce copra, used in the West in cosmetics, drugs, soap and margarine. It looks romantic but it is hard work and it brings little real money. With copra virtually the only export, apart from some proceeds from tourism, the islands are left with a huge trade deficit of $39 million, which has to be made up by payments from the U.S. government.

Besides copra, another natural economic base could be developed in agriculture. But having lived most of their lives on welfare, the young Micronesians do not choose to do that, as this interview with a former official indicates:

BERMIN WEILBACHER, Chief, Division of Agriculture, Trust Territory Administration: Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems we have is the social attitude of the community towards agriculture. It has become something like a dirty business, something that dirties your hands and therefore they do not like to get involved, and prefer other kinds of occupations that are clean, gives them a clean white shirt, clean hands.

MacNEIL: Fishing, particularly tuna fishing, is another natural industry which has not been tapped. Another former official explains why.

PETER T. WILSON, Chief, Marine Resource Division, Trust Territory Administration: The resource is enormous. It`s recognized as the last major undeveloped tuna resource in the world. However, developing this resource is not a simple thing. It has great deals of capital required. At the present time in the Trust Territory there`s only one fishery in operation by a U.S. firm. The question of financing the development of the commercial fisheries of the Trust Territory is a very ticklish one. The people want the fisheries for themselves; they`re not interested in having outsiders come in, provide the investment and then take the fish and the profits and go home. If private capital is used, the investor will want to take his money out of Micronesia, and this is not satisfactory to the people. As a consequence, we`re stymied.

MacNEIL: With virtually no economy, a massive bureaucracy has developed to administer the programs that keep the islands alive. The many offices provide a microcosm of our own government tangle. But as more and more self-government has come to the islands, the Congress of Micronesia, fashioned after the U.S. Congress, is now grappling with major realignments in the social and economic fiber of their land.

Robert Trusk is an economist with the United Nations Development Programme. Mr. Trusk was sent to Micronesia eighteen months ago when the Congress of Micronesia and the U.S. Interior Department called on the U.N.D.P. for advice in building an economy. Mr. Trusk, what economic problems did you find in Micronesia?

ROBERT TRUSK: Well, Mr. MacNeil, we started out using the terms of reference given to us by the Congress of Micronesia, which were basically two points. First of all they told us that the United States Congress was balking at increasing the appropriations to the Trust Territory without a development plan. Secondly, they became very anxious over the end of the trusteeship, inasmuch as they did not have an economy which they felt could support the islands after the trusteeship ends. The United Nations advisors came in then and surveyed the economy over a period of about one year. Our results indicated that the situation was perhaps worse than the Micronesians had expected. First of all, the cost of government was extremely high -- some fifty-five million dollars per year for 100,000 people, which, compared with the local revenues of only about for or five million dollars, indicated that the Micronesians were far away from a point when they could support their own local government. The other aspect of that finding was that about eighty percent of these expenditures by the U.S. government on operation of the Trust Territory government were going to health, education and administration, and a very, very small amount was actually going to economic development.

MacNEIL: So it was, in effect, a welfare state.

TRUSK: If you like to define welfare that way, I guess you could say so. The other major finding our study showed was that the consumption levels in Micronesia were far beyond their income level. In other words, something like fifteen to twenty million dollars a year in consumption was over and above what they were actually earning in income, which was all paid for by United States transfer payments to Micronesia through welfare programs. In other words, if today the

U.S. government were to stop these transfer payments to the Trust Territory the Micronesians would find themselves in a rather bad way with respect to their own food production.

MacNEIL: Why haven`t the Micronesians developed indigenous industries that would seem natural, like farming and fishing?

TRUSK: Primarily, I believe, because the United States government as well as the Micronesians felt that their social development was more important at that time. We must remember that this pro gram started in the Trust Territory some years ago. At that time the U.S. government, I believe, and the Micronesians, I think, also, agreed that they felt education, health and government were their priorities. It was not until the time came when the trusteeship was coming to an end that the Micronesians then became quite concerned about their own development problems.

MacNEIL: I see. What, very briefly, are the alternatives open to the Micronesians now, as you see it?

TRUSK : For economic development?

MacNEIL: Yes.

TRUSK: We think they have very good natural resources, primarily in agriculture and in marine resources. They have not much land area but the land area they have is very fertile, plentiful rainfall; they can grow a wide variety of tropical crops. But I think the more important thing is that they can produce enough food to feed themselves and they can fish. If given the proper modern equipment and technology they can certainly find enough fish in the seas surrounding the islands to feed themselves. So our recommendation to the Congress of Micronesia was to develop their natural resources in agriculture, marine resources, tourism to a certain extent, and small-scale industries for unemployment.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: It is the U.S. Department of Interior that has the responsibility for administering the U.S. interests in Micronesia, and James Berg is the staff officer in the Department`s Office of Terri torial Affairs for Micronesia specifically. He was first introduced to the islands in 1971 when he went there as one of those Peace Corps volunteers. Mr. Berg, some have suggested that the U.S. policy toward Micronesia up to now has been more destructive than constructive. Do you agree with that?

JAMES BERG: I think you probably have to look over the history of our administration of the Trust Territory to find an answer to that question. If you look at what the United States has done since 1947 in Micronesia from a 1976 or 1977 perspective, I think certain parts of our administration could be called destructive. But at the times they were done the thoughts that must have gone through people`s minds, the priorities, the programs, the political necessities that were there at the time I think go a long way to justifying why those decisions were made.

LEHRER: These are primarily the decisions that Mr. Trusk was just mentioning -- the decision that social needs were the number one priority, is that right?

BERG: That`s correct.

LEHRER: And to build up the government, and that sort of thing.

BERG: The period of the 1960`s was a real watershed for the United States and its policy on Micronesia. It started in the early sixties with the Kennedy administration and with the pressure that I think was referred to from the United Nations. The United States really moved in two directions; it moved to increase social welfare -- health programs, education programs. It really put priority there. It also increased, of course, the amount of annual grant. It made a second and, I think, very important move at that time to institutionalize self-government in Micronesia, to bring about the formation of a Congress of Micronesia which Representative Setik, who will be speaking to us, is in, et cetera.

LEHRER: But they created a Congress -- here again, I will say this and you can agree or disagree, but from what we`ve heard it seems this way to me -- to preside over, basically, the distribution of U.S. money rather than to administer a government. Is that not correct?

BERG: I think there are elements of truth to that. The Congress of Micronesia cannot really be called the government of Micronesia. There is a High Commissioner appointed by the President and responsive to Washington who is the chief executive officer. What the Congress has done, where it has made its true impact, I think, is taking on responsibilities like development planning, taking on responsibilities like political status, making the views of the people of Micronesia known in a consistent and coordinated way to the United States. That is what`s really needed, and that`s the way that Micronesians can come across, I think.

LEHRER: All right. The nitty-gritty question now, Mr. Berg, is, has the light dawned here in the United States among those who make policy and among those who vote appropriations that maybe there`s another approach?

BERG: I would hope that the light has dawned within the executive branch. I think it has and I think we owe a lot to the work Mr. Trusk has done and to the Congress of Micronesia to show us the need for priorities in development and economic development planning. Whether or not I can say the same thing about every member of the United States Congress I can`t say for sure. There are very importantly differing views in the Congress.

LEHRER: All right. Thank you, Mr. Berg. Robin?

MacNEIL: We`ve heard now from outsiders who know Micronesia well, but let`s hear from somebody who is a Micronesian himself. Raymond Setik is a member of the House of Representatives in the Congress of Micronesia. He represents a group of islands called the Lower Mortlocks in the Truk district. Congressman Setik is chairman of the Joint Committee on Budget and Program Planning. He is also project director for the five-year economic program which was adopted by the Micronesian Congress in consultation with Mr. Trusk and the United Nations Development Programme. Mr. Setik, first of all, would you Micronesians have been better off if you had not become a trust of the United States?

Rep. RAYMOND SETIK: My answer to that would be no, in a way; that we are very fortunate to be associated with the United States to help develop the islands out there.

MacNEIL: But is there another side to that as well?

SETIK: No.

MacNEIL: You do not feel so. What is the cause, in your view, of the economic problems that Micronesia has?

SETIK: The cause of the problems in Micronesia is that for the past ten years before the creation of the Congress of Micronesia the direction which took place was to develop the social infrastructure such as education and health area, where there was a neglect on the part of the developing economy in Micronesia.

MacNEIL: How do these problems show up in the lives of Micronesians? Were we correct to refer to not only joblessness but crime and a certain amount of suicide among young people? How else does it show up in the lives of Micronesians?

SETIK: Right now, that is a big problem that we are facing. The lives in Micronesia today are that the education is training more people in things such as liberal arts and other white-collar jobs so that they are overtrained.

MacNEIL: And they can`t all be members of the Micronesian Congress.

SETIK: (Laughing.) Well, it`s a very serious situation we are facing today, and we are trying to work toward changing that approach by training more Micronesians into the development by time sectors.

MacNEIL: We`re going to get into in a moment how Micronesia might change for the better in the future; but are Micronesians, especially young ones who`ve known no other way of life up to now, are they going to have to undergo a very big change in attitude and training before a viable economy can be built there?

SETIK: We foresee that right now, especially with those students who just returned from abroad. While they are being educated, they come back to Micronesia and seek jobs, and we are faced with an increase of high unemployment. The percentage right now is about thirteen percent of unemployment in Micronesia. It`s about thirty percent in the age group from fifteen to twenty-five -- that area.

MacNEIL: I see. Let`s ask Mr. Berg and then the rest of you: whoever is ultimately at fault in this situation, Mr. Berg, what does the Interior Department feel at the moment is the remedy for this?

BERG: It`s always difficult to say. I think one of the things that we look to, both for guidance and also as a way to try to get ideas across, is discussions we`re having with the people of Micronesia and their elected representatives on future political status. Clearly, the direction Micronesia goes after the trusteeship is terminated will have a lot to do with the type of development, the type of economy that Micronesia`s going to need.

MacNEIL: How long does the trusteeship last -- when is it supposed to end? Is there a definite date set on it?

BERG: No, there isn`t really. The trusteeship agreement is an open-ended agreement, but we have all been planning toward 1981 as a target date for termination.

MacNEIL: I see. What do you think is the remedy for the situation in Micronesia? You`ve said earlier, as far as the economy is concerned, that it should be to try and develop indigenous agriculture and fisheries and so on; do you have other feelings of what should be done?

TRUSK: Yes, we do. Our recommendations to the Congress of Micronesia were to, first of all, reorganize their government, perhaps make it more development-oriented rather than administration-oriented. Number two, reallocate many of the resources that they get from the United States government, which are quite sizable, more into the development areas and less into the social welfare areas. And number three, as Congressman Setik already pointed out, there must be a massive program now in retraining the people in Micronesia toward utilizing their own resources rather than depending on the employment through the government sector.

MacNEIL: Can Micronesian Congress redeploy those resources -they`re not targeted by the U.S. government to be spent on health programs or welfare programs or education?

SETIK: This is exactly why we are inviting the U.N.D.P. to come out and help us look into all these areas, so that we can redirect our resources in that direction. For example, as you mentioned ear lier about the five-year indicative development plan, it`s already been adopted by both the Congress of Micronesia and the administration, and we also have development of the basic infrastructure in Micronesia to redirect our resources into that direction.

MacNEIL: What basically does that plan, drawn up by the Congress of Micronesia in consultation with you, provide for, in its essentials?

TRUSK: It covers a vast number of areas. The Micronesians asked for a comprehensive development plan, so we covered not only the economic sectors but the government sector, public finance, the social sectors, organization and what not.

MacNEIL: Is the U.S. government at the moment, do you feel -I`ll ask Mr. Berg for his reaction -- cooperating in providing the kinds of resources the Micronesians need to carry this out? Are you happy with what the U.S. government is doing?

SETIK: Up to now, we are not quite happy.

MacNEIL: What are you unhappy about?

SETIK: At the moment, for example, this is the first budget which we have presented to the U.S. Congress which reflects our thinking and our wishes to develop at least the basic infrastructure. Pres ently we don`t have a safe airfield; we don`t have adequate dock facilities; the water problems and the sewers and of course the basic infrastructure that we`d like to have put in place.

MacNEIL: Ports, airfields, water, sewerage.

SETIK: Yes. All of that.

MacNEIL: I see.

SETIK: If we get those at least, since we are talking about termination of the trusteeship by 1981; right now we have nothing as far as the economic development is concerned.

MacNEIL : Right now you`d be scared to have the trusteeship end, would you?

SETIK: Exactly.

MacNEIL: I see. Jim?

LEHRER: Yes. Let`s pursue that question of political status for a moment. As you know, Congressman, the terms of the original U.N. trust in 1947 said the United States was to move Micronesia toward "self-government and independence." My question is this: Is Micronesia any closer to that reality now than they were in 1947? Are you ready to govern yourselves?

SETIK: We are not quite ready to govern ourselves. Basically it`s because, as I said earlier, there is no economic infrastructure that is in place.

LEHRER: Is that a realistic dream, and if so, when do you want it to take place, you and the people of Micronesia?

SETIK: I would say as soon as possible, provided that we have at least those basic needs. For example, the foreign investment was just recently -- about two years ago -- open to the Micronesians. Ever since it was closed, no one has been allowed to come into Micronesia to develop in foreign investment, as I said.

LEHRER: Mr. Berg, what is the U.S. position on this question of eventual independence for Micronesia?

BERG: First, let me say that the trusteeship agreement says self-government or independence; and I say that because our political status negotiations to date have concentrated on a political arrangement called "free association." It would be a fifteen-year arrangement between Micronesia and the United States. There would be internal self-government; the United States would have authority for foreign affairs and defense.

LEHRER: And the U.S. would continue aid under that free association for fifteen years.

BERG: Yes, indeed. The last negotiating round called for $780 million over the period of fifteen years in direct assistance to the government of Micronesia to be used as the government saw fit.

LEHRER: Is the ultimate goal independence for Micronesia?

BERG: I don`t think the United States really is in a position to say what is the ultimate goal down the line. That`s something that in the first instance, and really in the last instance, has to be determined by the people of Micronesia. I think the United States has identified security interests in the area, we`ve identified a need to continue to work with the Micronesians, but we certainly do not want to keep them from becoming an independent nation if that is indeed their will.

LEHRER: Congressman, what is your view of this free association thing -- that`s the subject of negotiations right now, is it not? are you in favor of that?

SETIK: Yes, that is correct. This is where we are. We are in favor of the free association arrangement. However, I think you may be aware of the fact that because of the CIA bugging in Micronesia everything just collapsed, as it stands right now.

LEHRER: You mean it`s still in a state of collapse as a result of that?

SETIK: It is, but I believe there is some dialogue of exchange of communications between the present administration and the leadership of the Congress of Micronesia.

MacNEIL: This is the story of the CIA bugging Micronesian officials.

SETIK: That is correct.

MacNEIL: And which you have complained about to the U.S. government .

SETIK: Yes. We don`t really understand why they are bugging their friends, because we are really the friends of the United States and we would like to be working toward a mutual understanding that will lead to a good relationship between Micronesia and the United States. All right. Robin?

LEHRER: All right. Robin?

MacNEIL: Thank you all very much. We`ll watch with interest, Mr. Setik, to see what happens in Micronesia. Thank you, Mr. Berg. Good night, Jim. Thank you both here. Jim Lehrer and I will be back tomorrow night. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.