Colonel Grant Newsham was in Palau last month when something interesting caught his eye. It was an article in the Palau Island Times that, as he later explained in a letter to the editor of that newspaper, misleadingly described the Compacts of Free Association as American “imperial” oppression in service to a “Permanent Oceanic Empire.”
But what really got his attention was that the article quoted him.
Relying on his 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, Indo-Pacific Task Force, as part of a hearing on “How the Compacts of Free Association Support U.S. Interests and Counter the [People’s Republic of China’s] PRC’s Influence,” Col. Newsham is quoted as saying that the relationships that the freely associated states have with the United States is “unprecedented,” and that “[t]hey may be ‘the only three countries on Earth that have given up their sovereignty and control of a part of their government to the United States.’”
Newsham responded by acknowledging that while the statement is technically correct, “the meaning was very different than the reporter suggests.”
U.S. Military Presence in the Freely Associated State of Palau
Newsham is clear that the U.S.has a strong military presence in Palau, but he counters that “removing the US presence – and the US military – from the Pacific region [would create] a vacuum” that China would fill.
“And if, as the article claims,” Newsham adds “Palau is undermining its sovereignty by having defense agreements with the U.S., it is in good company – so have major powers like Japan, Britain, and a number of countries that have entered into agreements with the United States that allow the stationing of US forces and even establishment of US bases in their nations. And all in exchange for a promise the United States will protect them.”
He concludes that “through the defense agreements, the Americans are giving up some of their own ‘sovereignty’ via the obligation to defend Palau (and Japan and others), including to sacrifice American lives, should it be necessary.”
What is clear from Newsham’s response is that many countries – including the FAS – are home to U.S. military forces. The U.S. military is present in Palau, just as the U.S. military would be a more significant presence in a freely associated state of Puerto Rico. U.S. military might is at the core of free association relationships.
He concludes, “[s]uccessive Palauan leaders and citizens have themselves decided the [Compact of Free Association] COFA agreements are in their nation’s interests. These are voluntary agreements and can be terminated at will. Yes, this means giving up some sovereignty – and having the other side give up some of its sovereignty in return.”
Newsham’s sentiments are consistent with reporting on the ground in Palau, in which Presidential candidate Tommy Remengusau is campaigning on “the ongoing militarization in Palau and public concerns about the increase of military personnel and activities” by the U.S.
Lessons for Puerto Rico
Newsham is emphasizing a positive aspect of the COFA relationships – U.S. national security protection. The three free associated states (FAS) chose independent sovereignty rather than becoming territories of the United States, as another United Nations Pacific Trust Territory, the Northern Mariana Islands, did at the time. While transitioning to independence, the FAS made arrangements with the United States allowing U.S. military control within each nations’ borders to provide for their defense.
From 1999 to 2001, Puerto Rico strongly rejected U.S. military presence on its shores. U.S. Navy presence on Vieques prompted violent protests that ultimately ended with the Navy leaving the Island in 2001. The U.S. Navy never returned.
Meanwhile, amidst signs that the U.S. is planning on a greater military presence in the Freely Associated States, Puerto Rico voters will go to the polls next week to decide among three status options, one of which is free association.
Those who choose free association will be giving up some sovereignty and accepting military involvement by the United States. Do the former Vieques protesters know this? Do any voters know this? In order to make informed voting decisions, voters must understand what they’re voting for.
Updated on October 29 to include quote from Palau press.
